Murry Salby responds to critics

Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond, which he has at length in a PDF (see below). The figures listed below refer to that PDF, which encompasses 15 years of events.

I don’t have the resources (unlike the National Science Foundation, the NSF) to investigate it all, but wanted to give Murry the right of reply.

On closer inspection the NSF report used by people to attack Salby does not appear to be the balanced, impartial analysis I would have expected. Indeed the hyperbolic language based on insubstantial evidence is disturbing to say the least. Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.

Remember the NSF report was supposedly an inhouse private document. It was marked “Confidential”, subject to the Privacy Act, with disclosure outside the NSF prohibited except through FOI. Desmog vaguely suggest there “must have been an FOI”, but there are no links to support that. In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been “leaked” to those in search of a character attack.

Post navigation

569 thoughts on “Murry Salby responds to critics”

If the facts support your case, argue the facts. If the facts support your opponent, argue the man. Salby is arguing the facts, Desmog is arguing the man.

I believe it was no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln that used this technique with great success. When faced with a case he could not win on the evidence he argued that the city slicker lawyer for the other side clearly didn’t know what he was talking about, because he couldn’t even figure out how to tie his collar.

(At the time collars were worn separate from the shirt, and it had become the fashion in the city to wear your collar back to front, while country folks still wore their collars front to front.)

Graham Readfearn, who “found” the NSF report, in the linked Desmog blog post, refers to Anth_ny W_tts as a “denialist”, along with a reporter. IMO the antiscientific IPCC denies reality, by asserting without evidence that humans are responsible for 90% of “climate change” over the past 50 years.

From the PDF report:
“The investigation pursued numerous targets, finding little of substance. When one target proved fruitless, it adopted another. After years of searching, the best it could come up with was:

“…Acknowledged as the investigation’s most significant finding, the claim was, by its own admission, mere speculation. It was inconsistent with the physical evidence…””

Since we do not know what this ‘inconsistency’ is and I doubt they did either because after this letter the NSF used the bureaucracy in order to eliminate him. Not on the bases of the science presented.

“Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.”

A reasonable point – but the NSF report did not come to light with regard to Prof Salby’s claims about CO2 but in relation to his allegations regarding his termination of employment.

I’m willing to look at both sides and consider the possibility that perhaps Murray is a screwball.

But.

Macquarie University stranding him in Paris and holding a hearing they went out of their way to make sure he couldn’t attend speaks volumes about them. There are also many other points in support of Murray and few if any in support of Macquarie.

It looks very much like Macquarie University broke their commitments to Murray and then went out of their way to discredit their own professor when he did science they didn’t approve of.

“Macquarie University stranding him in Paris and holding a hearing they went out of their way to make sure he couldn’t attend speaks volumes about them.”

Wait – According to both Prof Salby and the Uni they had not given approval for the trip and according to Prof Salby he had to fund the trip himself as a consequence. The university claims that Prof Salby bought the plane ticker using unapproved university funds and that claim fits with Prof Salby’s own account. So what we have is a university cancelling a plane ticket that had been improperly bought and Prof Salby abroad AGAINST THE ADVICE of the university. What should the university have done in such a circumstance? Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.

So, the CAGW-crowds’ hero-status goes to Jim Hansen who illegally and publically as a public employee not only received hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra pay and benefits and international travel from international agencies and gifts and “awards” DESPITE his illegal political statements and activities, but also that international acclaim and publicity came specifically BECAUSE of his political posturing.

but another man, NOT on the CAGW-crowds’ politically corrupt CAGW bandwagon, get stranded overseas wrongly and fired while stranded and without recourse because of …. what now? False claims and unsubstantiated “potential” problems while funding his own way to a conference?

“but another man, NOT on the CAGW-crowds’ politically corrupt CAGW bandwagon, get stranded overseas wrongly and fired while stranded and without recourse because of …. what now? False claims and unsubstantiated “potential” problems while funding his own way to a conference?”

If he had funded his own way to the conference then the university couldn’t have cancelled his plane ticket. There is basic issue of facts here. Also according to Prof Salby’s account the problems with Macquarie U started years before Prof Salby’s public comments about the behavior of CO2.

This is not a bun-fight I want to get into, I’m more interested in the scientific research he is doing. But unskeptical activists are spinning what appears to be an unbalanced, inconsistent report to do what they do — attack the man, to distract us from his research. (If only DeSmog had scientific evidence they wouldn’t need to run the smear campaigns, would they?)

Jo Nova says it all.

Yet, I would add (being cynical) that if I wanted to take down a sceptical scientist in this manner – publically portraying him as weird- then I would make sure he had priors and would have some vulnerability.

They didn’t try it with Pat Michaels, for example.
But they did tinker with his career within academia.

Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.

Agree wuth your first sentence. However, it is as ‘cut and dried’ as described by Mr Dollis. This was simply back room water-cooler politics. The feeders at the CAGW trough wanted to cause Prof Salby grief. Is there any doubt? The university’s explanations are a load of hogwash. They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything; they saw an opportunity to strand him at the airport and did. Then they saw an opportunity to decide his fate in their “investigation” — which they made sure he could not attend.

Maybe Salby isn’t a team player. Maybe he is even off his rocker. I don’t know. But you can be certain that if someone like Michael Mann or James Hansen was the issue, they never would have been stranded like that [in Mann’s case, he was even allowed to sit in and help formulate the questions he was going to be asked in one of his “investigations”!]

The whole thing stinks. Macquarie acted unethically, repeatedly, as did Colorado U]. If you want to defend their actions, I look forward to your rationale. Because given the facts presented by both sides, I think they done him wrong.

I find it amazing that someone like Tim Flannery who has a 3 day week and pulls in $180,000 per year, plus ALL expenses paid, and the government does nothing about the garbage he tells to all and sundry.

1. Tim Flannery: “that even if it rained again, it wouldn’t fill the dams” Big reward.
2. Murry Salby: Presents a video slowly dissecting the climate models accepted by and promoted by the IPCC to continue their cause. Sacked.

I have seen the start of a trend in this area in government departments also (federal, state and local) in regard to termination of employment if skeptical views are aired publicly…

That kind of retaliation has been happening in the U.S., as documented in Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, and elsewhere.

We are witnessing a slide into intolerance. History repeats. Those defending the university’s actions should think long and hard about what they are defending.

Murry Salby says ice CO2 records may be off by a couple of orders of magnitude for the really old samples. That’s a huge claim that needs backing up with some substantial arguments and quantitative evidence.

That was one part of his presentation that did not ring true to me. The rest of it “sounded” good but where is the much heralded paper?

It was reported at Jo Nova’s the is had “passed peer review” in 2011 …… where is it?

Murray Salby has attempted to revive an old controversy about the accurace of ice core data for atmospheric CO2 simply because his theories now require that. But Salby is making (and needs to make for the sake of his theories) some very radical claims about a ‘reverse smoothing’ mechanism in the topmost (firn) layer of ice pre-load compaction. Salby has not cited any prior literature in support of the (his estimated) extremes of the ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on this ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on his theories per se (despite them now being quite some years in gestation). And yet he is clearly a good scientist in some other areas?! What gives?

Quite frankly, I find the previous claims by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski regarding a much milder ice core CO2-altering effect far more scientifically sound and supported by known data than those of Salby. See for example:

It is noted that Jaworowski’s work (and minority position) was strongly supported by the historic review of the now deceased Ernst-George Beck on the body of pre-IR, chemically derived atmospheric CO2 data. As a former analyticvl chemist and geochemist I suggest it ‘beggars the imagination’ that all the pre-IR (pre-Keeling/Mauna Loa) historic atmospheric CO2 data could have been so wrong as Callendar, Keeling etc. (and the whole AGW bandwagon) have required.

But the fact remains that there is no sound evidence whatsoever that Salby’s radical levels ofpost-depositional reverse smoothing of past peak CO2 levels have any credence.

Personally I find Salby’s stuff so extremely tendentious that it reaches even greater heights of imagination than the (latent and sensible heat transfer-free) fantasies of Ferenc Miskolczi. People in the sceptical camp who take up the baton on Salby’s behalf are ignoring the very same dictates of good science and sound logic that the thousands who ran amok with Misckolczi’s bizarre theory did. They do a great disservice to the sceptical community IMHO.

Here there is a long account now of how the NSF mistreated Salby. In fact the original investigation was actually by the Office of Inspector General (p 34). When Salby left UC, he sued the University, and the Governor of Colorado, for infringing on his civil rights; then he mounted a state suit against UC. But he didn’t legally challenge the OiG or NSF investigations leading to him being debarred from grant funding, which seem to be his primary problem.

“…nor has he presented any published literature of his own on this ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on his theories per se (despite them now being quite some years in gestation). And yet he is clearly a good scientist in some other areas?! What gives?”

The history of science teaches us that when potentially new-ideas are put forward that question the status-quo [whether they are subsequently shown to be correct or not], they meet fierce resistance from the established scientific community. In an ideal world this is a good thing, since science requires a high level of proof before it abandons and established theory.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and so it is often the case that petty human spite and vindictiveness are used as the guiding principles in deciding whether or not these new ideas will appear in the peer-reviewed literature. Scientific history is replete with these pathetic attempts at gate-keeping.

If you are correct about Prof. Salby’s work then he will eventually put his ideas into the literature and they will be either fully/partially confirmed or rebuffed by the evidence.

The fact that the self-appointed gate-keepers of science are squealing like stuck-pigs about Prof. Salby’s work makes me feel that bulk of resistance he is experiencing is based upon the failings of human nature rather than genuine scientific concern.

“…I suggest it ‘beggars the imagination’ that all the pre-IR (pre-Keeling/Mauna Loa) historic atmospheric CO2 data could have been so wrong as Callendar, Keeling etc. (and the whole AGW bandwagon) have required.”

Riggghhhtt. Because, as we all know, the history of Science is one smooth, unbroken progression of incremental modification of the consensus view.

In case it doesn’t come through, that statement is dripping with sarcasm. That is the whole problem with the appeals to the “consensus”. Even if it were true, it would only have weight if the consensus were usually correct. But, in fact, the “consensus” is usually hard over in the wrong direction prior to a paradigm shift.

BTW, Salby’s theory is almost trivially confirmed by readily available evidence. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly with respect to a particular baseline. No its, ands, or buts about it. Human inputs have little effect. It’s right there, right before our eyes. The only way to miss it is to have a heavy bias against recognizing what is placed right under one’s nose.

dbstealey says: August 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm
“This was simply back room water-cooler politics. The feeders at the CAGW trough wanted to cause Prof Salby grief. Is there any doubt?”

Is there any evidence? Prof Salby was suspended without pay in February, pending a misconduct hearing. That would entail cancelling his Uni credit card. Someone in the Finance dept would have had the job of dealing with any outstanding matters on the card. The ticket got cancelled.

“They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything;”
Prof Salby took off for Europe after he had been suspended, with misconduct hearing pending. That is a structured process with the union represented and ample opportunity for the subject to be heard and quiz people. He preferred to be in Europe. The committee is required to meet within fifteen days, so it’s hardly the case that being in Paris weeks later kept him away.

The university’s explanations are a load of hogwash. They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything; they saw an opportunity to strand him at the airport and did. Then they saw an opportunity to decide his fate in their “investigation” — which they made sure he could not attend.

I agree with this. There simply was no good reason to hold the hearing in his absence. That stunk to high heaven.

If they felt really perturbed by the airline ticket, they could have cancelled it and rescheduled the hearing, and brought up the ticket at the hearing that Professor Salby then attended.

Even if the university was within their rights, to cancel the ticket and hold the hearing on schedule makes them look bad. They should have either let him fly back (and attempted to recoup any proper expenses rather than cancel a non-refundable ticket) or rescheduled the hearing a little later.

This would have given the appearance of proper behaviour and would make the hearing result seem more credible. As it is, they look terrible – facts aside.

Bart I am not at all convinced that “Salby’s theory(s) (there are a number of them if you look closely) is/are almost trivially confirmed by readily available evidence.” Your logic and reference) is faulty, in that respect. At least part of Salby’s theory(s) is/are patenetly over the top when it boils down to ‘post-depositional CO2 level smoothing’ in ice. Where is the evidence for that?

But I am convinced there is indeed an unresolved discrepancy (putting aside the tribe-like tendency of a majority of little boys clubs to reach a consensus even if the consensus is not absolutely proven) between the reality of the CO2 in air bubbles in ice cores and the reality of CO2 in a contemporary atmosphere (trapped at the time). Murry Salby was only right about one thing – it is all about the firm layer. But he is a lot less right than Jaworowski who came well before. Jawarovski is a practiced hands on an core expert who speaks clumsy English. Salby is a moderately talented signal deconvoluter, not an experimentalist (see his published papers).

“The ice could be dated with an accuracy of approximately ±2 years to a depth of 144 m (which corresponds to the year 1834) by counting seasonal variations in electrical conductivity. ”

and

“On the basis of porosity measurements, investigators determined that the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was 95 years and that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years (Schwander and Stauffer 1984).”

Everything since has hinged on those subsequent (almost invariably never acknowledged) ‘fiddle factors’ called ‘time lag’ and (mean) ‘close off duration”. Yet another model.

What this really means is that we really only know the CO2 content of the atmosphere in (say) Victorian times to ±95 years – coincidentally well within the majority of the pre-1900 chemical determinations which (in all fairness) averaged about 335 ppmv around 1884 (then ‘consensus value’) – very close indeed to the 345 ppmv (‘new consensus’) value for 1984!

Those Bern Swiss; Friedl, Neftel, Oeschger et al have a lot to answer for IMHO. It is where this rotten new consensus first really took root. Thirty years later their fiddle-factored consensus has still not been put to a burden of absolute truth. Fact.

I have Murry Salby’s climate textbook published in early 2012. In it there is little corroboration of the IPCC’s assessment of alarming AGW from burning fossil fuels.

I recommend for all to access it. One (of several) observations is that he is very critical of the Bern Carbon Cycle Model.

Salby is very publicly in fundamental opposition to Australian and US climate science establishments. That alone calls forth very critical vigilance / due diligence on their version of their story about the instances of their treatment of him.

We saw CG1 & CG2 provide widespread evidence showing a significant number of establishment scientists thwarting scientists which opposed their own; that is thwarting skeptical climate science that was critical of the IPCC’s ideologically biased meme of alarming AGW from burning CO2.

When a situation arises where there is an internationally based establishment focussing pejoratives toward a single individual, it should be of concern to those who have had the experience of opposing establishment.

Obviously none of us kniow the full and true facts. It is usually the case that matters are not black and white, and neither side openly and accurately conveys the true and full position.

That said, I find it completely unacceptable for the University to hold a hearing in Prof. Salby’s absence. This is almost certainly against the rules of natural justice. It is almost certainly the case that whatever the cause behind Prof Salby’s absence (ie., whether it was justified or not), the correct and appropriate procedure would have been to postpone the hearing and re-schedule it for a date when Prof Salby could attend and/or was in some other way represented.

In Court cases, it is my understanding that hearings are rarely conducted in the absence of one of the parties, and usually there is an adjournment with cost consequences which may depend upon the reason for the absence. I would have thought that the reasoning behind such approach to be even more compelling in the case of disciplinary hearings which may lead to dismissal. It would surprise me greatly if the University can justify its position with respect to the hearing, but then as noted at the outset, perhaps the full facts and circumstances are not known.

Whilst it is obviously of great concern to Prof Salby personally, and whilst I can see the wider implication for scientists who do not tow the ‘party line’, my utmost concern is the science. I am predominantly interested in whether and to what extent (if any) there is validity in the scientific points (or some of them) raised by Prof Salby.

Attacks against the man carry no weight, and hopefully this episode will not silence Prof Salby and he will continue to explore and push the science that he considers to be correct and relevant. Hopefully, the debate on this science will continure unabated.

i have seen you raise this point a number of times together with your supporting plot. I have never seen Nick Stokes respond to your point and it would be interesting to read Nick Stokes’ comments on your point and the plotted data to which you refer (in your hyper link).

If Nick Stokes is still following this thread, perhaps he would kindly respond to it, but, of course, that may well depend upon whether he has a good counter argument.

Simply said: let Ernst Beck and Jaworowsky rest in peace, together with their theories of historical measurements and ice cores .

I had some long year discussions with the late Ernst Beck about the historical measurements. Most should be discarded as taken in “CO2 heat islands” to compare with the interpretation of temperature readings. Taken midst of towns, forests, growing crops, etc. levels between 200 and 650 ppmv at the same place within hours…
Samples taken over the oceans were around the CO2 values of ice cores, confirmed decades later. See further:http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

As problematic is what the late Jaworowsky said: migration of CO2 from lower concentrations to higher ones, misinterpretation of the difference between the ice age and gas age of ice cores, etc… Most of his objections were already answered by Etheridge e.a. in 1992 by drilling three ice cores at Law Dome with different techniques (wet and dry) and carefully measuring CO2 levels in firn and ice, top down. Including an overlap of ~20 years with the direct measurements at the South Pole. See further:http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

Last but not least, Salby, Bart and others all interpretate the nice correlation between temperature and CO2 rate of change on short time variability as causing the whole increase over the past 160 years, or at least the past 50 years. But that is curve fitting, based on an completely arbitrary base line. One can make the same fit for every combination of temperature influence and human emissions. Thus one need to look at other observations to see what really happened. See for a comparison:
and
both are fitted to the least squares residue over the period 1960-2011

Then it becomes interesting: human emissions fit all observations, temperature doesn’t. Thus according to Salby and Bart, the observations must be wrong and Salby makes his own interpretation of the migration in ice cores to fit his theory… But there is no such migration: over 800 kyr the peaks and drops in CO2 exactly follow the peaks and drops in temperature (with some lag) at a ratio of ~8 ppmv/K. If there was any substantial migration, the peaks of CO2 would fade over each interglacial 100 kyr back in time…
Bart simply rejects all other observations and “shows” that the oceans are the main source, be it that he doesn’t include the negative feedback from a higher CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…

Where it goes wrong is that Salby and Bart think that the short term variation and the increase over the period 1850-current are caused by the same processes. But the short term reaction of (tropical) vegetation on temperature is by releasing more CO2, while the longer term reaction of (mid-latitude to polar) vegetation on temperature is more uptake. For short term reactions temperature is the main cause, while for the increase pressure related processes are at work…

richard verney says: August 12, 2013 at 1:54 am
“If Nick Stokes is still following this thread, perhaps he would kindly respond to it, “

I don’t know how well what Bart is saying relates to any Salby theory. The reason is that while two years ago we were told“The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming.”
there’s been nothing in writing – not even a blog post.

But Bart’s theory has a big gap. He shows the derivative of pCO2 against temperature, but with a fudge number, which aligns the graphs. That number includes the gradient of the steady rise of CO2, and corresponds to what sensible people see as the natural consequence of burning nearly 10 Gtons of carbon a year. That just disappears from the graph..

But that aside, if you look at the graph, it does track the El Nino peaks quite well. That’s not surprising – no one disputes that seas will outgas some CO2 when they warm. Otherwise, tracking isn’t great. Since 1980 the CO2 rate dips quite frequently with little corresponding temperature movement. Before then, it’s temperature that makes unrequited dips.

“Given that everything you say is true, what is your opinion on Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?”

The uni had asked Prof Salby not to travel and hadn’t approved his travel. What do you think the university should have done. What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?

“Even if the university was within their rights, to cancel the ticket and hold the hearing on schedule makes them look bad. They should have either let him fly back (and attempted to recoup any proper expenses rather than cancel a non-refundable ticket) or rescheduled the hearing a little later.

This would have given the appearance of proper behaviour and would make the hearing result seem more credible. As it is, they look terrible – facts aside.”

I agree – just in this thread alone people keep returning to the stranded-at-the-airport story even though in Salby’s own account it was actually one of his weakest points. It is easy to see how the stranding occurred but it was a PR error on the uni’s part.

“Yet, I would add (being cynical) that if I wanted to take down a sceptical scientist in this manner – publically portraying him as weird- then I would make sure he had priors and would have some vulnerability.”

The problem with most of these plots-against-salby theories is they tend to mismatch with the sequence of events. In this case please remember that it was Prof Salby who publicized his dispute with Macquirie Uni and it was only after his public complaint (via this blog and others) that a prior dispute with his previous employer was publicized. Notably the NSF report did not appear on warmist sites in response to Prof Salby’s Sydney Institute lecture.

“It does appear that there has been some very devious petty-politicking going on here, but the key issue is his work. Let’s see what he’s got.”

Greg, you are on point, and the entire issue here is the university’s actions. They were not aboveboard, and they had nothing to do with Salby’s science. This was politics, nothing more or less.

And regarding this:

“…there is a long account now of how the NSF mistreated Salby. In fact the original investigation was actually by the Office of Inspector General (p 34). When Salby left UC, he sued the University, and the Governor of Colorado, for infringing on his civil rights; then he mounted a state suit against UC…”

Dr Salby prevailed in all of his actions, according to Jo Nova. When someone forces an institution and state bureaucrats to back down, there are hurt feelings, and some folks don’t forget. These vindictive attacks seem to have hounded Salby all the way to Australia. What else would explain what is going on here?

I’m not defending or attacking Salby’s science. But it appears obvious that some un-named people are using the weight of the university to cause him personal grief. That seems reprehensible to me. His scientific facts should stand or fall on their own, without being hobbled by the university’s unethical actions.

Nyq Only says:

“What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?”

After reading the ENTIRE report from the NSF (using the Desmog link) yesterday, a couple self-contradictions jumped out at me. Some were related to Salby’s response and some were not. I won’t address Salby’s explanations in his response, only what was included in the NSF report itself. Equally troubling was the fact that all the supporting evidence mentioned in the report was not included. The only facts and figures were the NSF summary interpretations.

The main contradictions that bothered me were:
1. A footnote at the start of the report mentions the “duplicate” application with another agency was not funded. Yet later in the report it states Salby broke the rules by not disclosing the “pending” application. If the first application was already denied, then it wasn’t pending and didn’t need to be disclosed.
2. Much of the report focuses on the issue of the Company 2 as a subcontractor. But the NSF report goes back and forth concerning Company 2 being just Salby or being another actual company doing work. When they want to dismiss all but the first $25,000 as being overcharges, NSF assumes that the “indirect” charges limit should be applied because the subcontractor was doing all the work. But when they want to characterize the subcontract as a sham to funnel money clandestinely to Salby, they say that Salby was the only employee. They switch again when Salby points out that Company 2 is a personal corporation that all his financial dealings go through, it suddenly has other employees also. Similarly, when discussing the ability to do the work the NSF says it’s financial so would be no good at doing scientific work. Yet is Company 2 is Salby then he as the Principal Investigator is obviously capable of doing the work.
3. There was also a major Catch-22 going on. They contacted Salby in Australia to provide supporting evidence of the documented hours. Yet when he is able to provide it, they assume it’s fake because he is in Australia. So either way, they had already decided there was no evidence that would be accepted.
4. Another aspect of the “indirect” limitation application. To justify the “overcharging” by imposing the indirect limitation, they discuss all the additional company related expenses that a subcontractor would not be entitled to. Yet when suggesting Salby is a tax cheat to boot, they point out that not all the money paid to Company 2 shows up on Salby’s taxes. This too comes from the Just Salby/Real Company flip flopping throughout the report.
5. Although not an explicit contradiction, there is one damning point that is implied but never actually stated. This suggest that the actual fact would contradict the implied fact. Throughout the report, much hay is made of need to report staffing and assigned duty changes because of how they will affect the financial cost and timely outcome of the grant. The strong implication is that Salby made these changes to enrich himself and allowed the research to suffer. However, nowhere in the report does it state that the research was late, over budget, or of substandard quality.

Actually Steve, I don’t mind your post of 7:05 pm – not sure how I missed it with my 9:22pm – maybe it was not visible yet. My apologies.

To be clear, I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates. Bart wrote this point on August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm.

The argument from the consensus crowd is that the above CO2-after-temperature lag is a “feedback mechanism” is utterly specious, imo.

But if temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, why has atmospheric CO2 continued to increase even as there has been no significant warming of average atmospheric temperatures for the past ~10-20 years?

I think it is safe to say that we really do not have a good understanding of atmospheric CO2 concentrations pre-1958. There are many valid questions about absolute accuracy of the ice-core record. The late Ernst Beck raised some good questions based on chemical analyses, but was unfortunately shouted down by the consensus crowd. Beck, Salby and others make counter-arguments that may or may not prove true. Richard Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen have ably debated the “mass balance argument” in these pages and elsewhere.

In the end, we just do not know enough about atmospheric CO2 concentrations pre-1958. I suggest that if, as we predicted in 2002, atmospheric temperatures will soon cool, then we will reach a better fundamental understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

In the meantime, it is reasonable to conclude that:
1. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is near-zero and increasing CO2 concentrations are inconsequential to atmospheric temperature. The alleged global warming crisis does not exist.
2. Grid-connected “green energy” schemes like wind and solar power are currently inefficient, ineffective, and a waste of scarce global resources.
BTW, we confidently published both these conclusions in 2002.

Finally, I suggest that in science, one of the only true tests is one’s predictive record, and the CAGW crowd has none.

Given that everything you say is true, what is your opinion on Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?

Whatever the dispute over the science, that is no reason to fire someone, only reason to discuss things out. Seems that everything escalated since day one. I can’t and won’t interprete what happened as one need to know more details from both sides, but at least the hearing should have been with Salby present in person…

Nyq Only says: @ August 12, 2013 at 3:05 am
….The uni had asked Prof Salby not to travel and hadn’t approved his travel. What do you think the university should have done. What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It depends.

He was giving a presentation. This means he had probably made COMMITMENTS long before the brohaha blew-up AND the plane reservation was also made long before there was any mention of the hearing. Many of these conferences and such are often set-up a year or more in advance. The speakers have to be book well in advance so the brochures advertising the event can be printed up and sent to the potential audience months before the event. I do kids entertainment and we get booked six months to a year in advance so I would guess that Prof Salby received the invitation to speak with at least that much lead time.

Remember hotel accommodations and convention centers have to be set-up and this is often done years in advance.

Why should he not honor his commitment, honor his word? Canceling at the last minute would be a grave disservice to the conference. Besides, the University doesn’t OWN him.

If the University did not wish him to go WHY DID THEY WAIT UNTIL HE WAS IN THE EU to cancel the ticket, especially since it was non-refundable? That is what stinks of petty vengeance.

Nyq Only says: Nyq Only says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm
(,…) So what we have is a university cancelling a plane ticket that had been improperly bought and Prof Salby abroad AGAINST THE ADVICE of the university. What should the university have done in such a circumstance? Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.

August 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm

Hold on. Maquarie University later said that they “cancelled his ticket in error”.

Furthermore, the ticket was non-refundable so they did not recoup the money in any case.

If you look at Prof Salby and Dr Jaworowski from the point of view of politics there are interesting parallels.

…Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding…..

In both instances politics and not science is used to take down the man. This makes you wonder just how dangerous the line of research they were pursuing is to the CAGW religion.

I would hazard a guess, VERY DANGEROUS. “…. the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research….”

dbstealey says: August 12, 2013 at 2:54 am
” Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?”

If you’re going to keep on with this, you should find out the timing. Salby says he was suspended without pay for misconduct in February. That requires that a committee meets within fifteen days. Salby himself says:“14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.”

And clearly, Salby was informed. But he went to Europe anyway. His first date there seems to have been EGU, April 8th. The committee would have been going for weeks at that stage. It may well have finished. How do you get that Salby was rendered unable to defend himself by lack of an air ticket at end April?

“Dr Salby prevailed in all of his actions, according to Jo Nova.”
No, he abandoned both court actions.

Gail Combs says: August 12, 2013 at 4:26 am
“He was giving a presentation. This means he had probably made COMMITMENTS long before the brohaha blew-up AND the plane reservation was also made long before there was any mention of the hearing.”

No, he says he applied for permission and the University refused. They are, or were, paying his salary. They also refused to fund the air ticket.

“…I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates.”

Then how do you explain this? It is clear that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.

==========================================

Nick Stokes,

I suggest you read Jo Nova’s summary. If you’ve read it, read it again. Among other things, it reports: By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Sounds like a win to me. But then it’s clear your mind is made up. So maybe re-reading the summary would be a waste of your time.

Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?

you say

If you’re going to keep on with this, you should find out the timing. Salby says he was suspended without pay for misconduct in February. That requires that a committee meets within fifteen days. Salby himself says:

14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.”

And clearly, Salby was informed. But he went to Europe anyway. His first date there seems to have been EGU, April 8th. The committee would have been going for weeks at that stage. It may well have finished. How do you get that Salby was rendered unable to defend himself by lack of an air ticket at end April?

Firstly, there is a misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) in what you have written.

It is clear that when Salby writes that, “Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed”, then the “circumstances” he mentions are his absence and the reason for it. He was NOT referring to his informing the Hearing about the matters it was to investigate.

Importantly, Salby was attending a Speaking engagement that could only have been arranged months in advance. As Gail Combs says: August 12, 2013 at 4:26 am

He was giving a presentation. This means he had probably made COMMITMENTS long before the brohaha blew-up AND the plane reservation was also made long before there was any mention of the hearing.

Your reply to that says

No, he says he applied for permission and the University refused. They are, or were, paying his salary. They also refused to fund the air ticket.

Frankly, that is ridiculous. The commitment would have been long before the disciplinary matter arose. Either they agreed to it then, or they were malign by refusing it then (attendance to speak at such conferences is normal for an academic in his position), or they were malign when they withdrew the permission. The only way their refusal could not have been malign was if Salby had recently attended many similar conferences, and I can find no evidence that he had.

And you make presumptions; viz.
“The committee would have been going for weeks at that stage. It may well have finished.”
Your suppositions are noted but I observe that Macquariehas made no statement which supports them, and it is strange that Macquarie has made no such statement if your suppositions are true. Frankly, your suppositions are not credible in the absence of such a statement.

So, Salby had an existing commitment to attend the conference. And insistence on holding the Hearing prior to his return could only be malign: either Salby is discredited by failing to fulfil the commitment together with a public statement at the Conference of his reason (i.e. attending a Disciplinary Hearing), or Salby is prevented from defending himself at the Hearing.

Indeed, if the NSF had found that Salby was guilty of false accounting and improper tax returns then there would have been “court actions” AGAINST HIM. Are you claiming there were such “court actions” but they were withdrawn? If so, then he could not have “abandoned” them.

I’ll say this about Ferdinand Engelbeen’s amateurish and nasty attacks on the dead Beck and Jawarowski and the whole body of pre-1983 chemical (Pettenkoffer etc) CO2 measurements going right back to the 1850s.

Abstract
Criteria minimizing differences in operators, location, and time of observation are established for selecting comparative data on atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past 100 years. The resulting selection showed in all cases the period 1907–1956 to have a higher mean than 1857–1906. The difference between means was not statistically significant for 5 unweighted comparisons. Weighting by estimates of reliability resulted in a significant difference for yearly and summer non-urban values, but not for the other 3 comparisons. Additional comparisons of all values in the study, of six entire distributions, and of five paired studies with closely comparable data showed increases in a more recent period, with one exception. The magnitude of the increase for weighted yearly non-urban data was 25 ppm (from 294 to 319) for the quarters 1857–1881 to 1932–1956. Several possible explanations for the increase include: 1) an actual atmospheric increase, 2) a coincidence of the influence of micro-atmospheres, 3) improvement (or change) in chemical technique. Need for further sampling is emphasized and suggestions made for considering local influences in this sampling.

Published my good friend and excellent scientist Roger Bray in Tellus, 1959.

The assertion that the old 1992 David Etheridge et al paper discredited all Jawarowski’s criticisms is also nonsense when it contained a 10 year hiatus (fall even) in CO2 between 1935 and 1945 subsequently found to be methodological is simply laughable.

Engelbeen’s comments show no real understanding of the nature of the CO2 and 13C data produced from the sublimation method between just after Alex Wilson seminal paper of 1997 and the final perfection of the method around around 2010, some 13 years later.

I think in the end the entire stranding him at the airport thing is going to bite them in the butt. That kind of childish antics are rather uncalled for and obviously its grounds to prove that they had malicious thought and actually attempted to railroad him without using the proper channels. If you think about it, they fired him when he was out of the country. Someone had to time it like that and they had to realize that he was using the University Credit Card. The simple fact that they left him stranded goes to motivation. If they were going to fire him, you normally fire someone not through distance but through sitting down and talking to them. That is what grown-ups do. And yes, you often use security so that they can take their personal belongings out of their office, but you never simply fire them from afar. That is childish to the extreme.

This speaks volumes about the university. They fired him while he was out of the country. Its a remote possible they had no idea that he couldn’t get home, but in their attempt to be subtle and clever they end up looking childish, arrogant and of course rude. I guess they thought they could be more clever than most employers and fire the guy without even telling him so. A cancelled university credit card and a call home would have done the trick with the person informing them being some low-level bureaucrat who has no idea what is going on. Childish really. And I bet the person who did the firing STILL believes they are clever to do it like that. Its a power trip more likely than not with some over-promoted incompetent basically making sure the unversity gets a nice lawsuit out of the deal. All because they refused to follow proper ettiquete. Most times, lawsuits can be avoided if you simply stay civil to someone you are firing and treat them with respect.

The Australian university that sacked Salby while he was traveling on their own university business was shameful and wrong on its face. I’m not a fan of the Australian university system in general, as they appear to promote CAGW almost blindly, and have produced leading lights like Gergis and Karoly’s Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks, and are responsible for Lewandowsky’s crap.

I’m generally inclined to give Prof. Salby every benefit of doubt. But the back story of conflicts over his work at Colorado University is too obtuse and convoluted to interest me. Salby should make a brief summary (abstract, timeline) of those events, before jumping into the deep minutia, as he has done in his PDF. Brevity… soul of wit… major editing or rewrite needed…

But if temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, why has atmospheric CO2 continued to increase even as there has been no significant warming of average atmospheric temperatures for the past ~10-20 years?

Allan,

I think the point is that d(CO2)/dt is proportional to temperature.
This means that CO2 levels are proportional to the integral of temperature.

I think you will find that even tough the instantaneous temperature has recently flattened out, the integral of the atmospheric temperature with time is still rising. Hence, you would expect CO2 levels to still be going increasing.

I have never fully understood the reasoning for disregarding the old chemical CO2 measurements.

I have on a number of occassions suggested that before the results of those experiments be disregarded, they should today be replicated (ie., same equipment, same methodolgy, same geographical location, same season/time of year/time of day sampling etc) and see what results would be achieved today using that approach to the assessment of CO2 levels.

In my opinion, it would be interesting to compare results achieved today with the results which were achieved when those experiments were conducted all those year back, and to see whether there is some relationship with today’s levels of CO2 measured at ML etc., for example, are the results now achieved greater in some proportionate manner to which CO2 levels have increased in the latter part of the 20th century?

As I posted on Jo’ site, where is the contract between Salby and MQ? That alone will move this whole issue away from all this emotional theater and name calling into factual reality. I’ve wondered this from the first time I read about Prof Salby’s quandry.

Dr Short, Thank you for the defense of Beck and Dr Jawarowski. If there is any true justice in the world both will go down in history as heroes.

As an industrial chemist I find the assumption that “CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere” completely laughable but Engelbeen continues to cling to this very important assumption for CAGW like a ship wreck survivor clings to a floating plank.

1. The standard deviation of minute averages should be less than 0.30 ppm within a given hour. A standard deviation larger than 0.30 ppm is indicated by a “V” flag in the hourly data file, and by the red color in Figure 2.

2.The hourly average should differ from the preceding hour by less than 0.25 ppm. A larger hour-to-hour change is indicated by a “D” flag in the hourly data file, and by the green color in Figure 2.

3. There is often a diurnal wind flow pattern on Mauna Loa driven by warming of the surface during the day and cooling during the night. During the day warm air flows up the slope, typically reaching the observatory at 9 am local time (19 UTC) or later. The upslope air may have CO2 that has been lowered by plants removing CO2 through photosynthesis at lower elevations on the island, although the CO2 decrease arrives later than the change in wind direction, because the observatory is surrounded by miles of bare lava. In Figure 2 the downslope wind changed to upslope during hour 18. Upslope winds can persist through ~7 pm local time (5 UTC, next day, or hour 29 in Figure 2). Hours that are likely affected by local photosynthesis are indicated by a “U” flag in the hourly data file, and by the blue color in Figure 2. The selection to minimize this potential non-background bias takes place as part of step 4. At night the flow is often downslope, bringing background air. However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emissions from the crater of Mauna Loa. As the air meanders down the slope that situation is characterized by high variability of the CO2 mole fraction. In Figure 2, downslope winds resumed in hour 28. Hour 33 in Figure 2 is the first of an episode of high variability lasting 7 hours.

4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

In otherwords they use the “CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere” assumption as the reason for cherry picking the results they want.

There may well be merit in much you say, although to some extent it suggests that CO2 is not a well mixed gas.

It may well be the case that the results from the old chemical method experiments were polluted and distorted by the local factors that you raise. However, if that be the case, if those experiments were today replicated (see my post of 08:17am) the results achieved today would be similarly polluted/distorted save that on top of that pollution/distortion we should see overlaid, the signal from the increase in CO2 levels that took place post mid 20th century.

Of course, I accept that the local environmental conditions may not be exactly the same as they were in the past (eg., there may have been intervening land change, development, de-forestation, agricultural changes etc) and some further interpretation to take account of such changes may be necessary. But that said, before I would dismiss those old result out of hand, I would like to know what results would be achieved today, if those experiments were replicated as best possible.

Personally, I am surprised that papers dealing with those old results and dismissing them as not being representative did not attempt to replicate those experiments since that would certainly strengthen the position taken by the authors of the paper(s).

“One can make the same fit for every combination of temperature influence and human emissions.”

That is completely untrue. The human emissions have been increasing in rate over the time interval. There is no significant room for such a term to be added in. The temperature relationship already accounts for the acceleration in atmospheric CO2.

Temperature does. It’s right here. As far as the relationship to proxy data before 1958, Salby has explained how it is manifested.

“For short term reactions temperature is the main cause, while for the increase pressure related processes are at work…”

It is impossible for nature to work in this fashion.

Nick Stokes says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:45 am

“He shows the derivative of pCO2 against temperature, but with a fudge number, which aligns the graphs.”

The only arbitrary value in the model is the constant offset which defines the baseline temperature with respect to which the temperature anomaly is measured. So, you would be correct that I had a gap IF the rate of human emissions had been constant. But, the rate of human inputs (top plot) has most definitely and decidely NOT been constant.

Any influence of the trend in human emissions is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Ergo, human emissions can have little effect.

Allan MacRae says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am

“BTW, this is not originally Salby’s theory…”

What Salby has done is answered Ferdinand’s complaint above about how the relationship extends into the proxy record.

TO ALL:

Discussions of Salby’s alleged behavioral deficiencies have no place in a discussion about the science. Those of you pushing this angle clearly have an ulterior motive.

Gail, this is the second time that I see that you are dishonest: the two graphs that “prove” that the CO2 data are “selected” are from different stations, as the title above the graph clearly shows. One station is Neuglobsow, near Berlin midst a forest, thus completely unsuitable as “background” station. The other data are from Mace Head, coastal Ireland, which gives nice background data without any “selection”.
If you want to show the “manipulation” of the data, then plot the same data before and after selection and show what difference that gives in average, trend and variability.

In 95% of the atmosphere, CO2 is quite rapidely mixed. That is everywhere over the oceans and above a few hundred meters over land. Only in the first few hundred meters over land, fast sources and sinks can mess up things, especially under low wind conditions and inversion.

There is no need to revive the old instruments. The accuracy of most was around 3%, or +/- 10 ppmv. But one can use modern instruments to measure CO2 variability at the same spots as the historical measurements. Fortunately we have a few such places already in use.

Beck’s compilation shows a “peak” of about 80 ppmv around 1942. Besides the fact that that implies a change in CO2 release and uptake in the order of 1/3rd of all carbon contained in land vegetation, such a “peak” doesn’t show up in any other proxy (including stomata data and coralline sponges) or ice cores of high resolution (less than a decade).

When I searched all the papers that the late Ernst Beck used for that period, I saw that the “peak” was mainly caused by two long series: Poonah, India and Giessen, Germany. The former measured CO2 below, inbetween and above growing crops and only few were ambient. Not the slightest correlation with CO2 in the rest of the atmosphere. Giessen (a small village, semi-rural) is more interesting, as there is a modern station, not far from the historical site. Here a few days of measurements in summer with nightly inversion conditions, compared to actual “background” stations data:

Most of the historical measurements were taken three times a day, where two were at the flanks of the largest change of morning and evening. So even with the best equipment of the world, such data are worthless for knowing the CO2 levels in the bulk of the atmosphere of that time…
Even today quite problematic, as the monthly averages show more or less the same trend as the Mauna Loa trend, but some of the averages are skyhigh:

That is completely untrue. The human emissions have been increasing in rate over the time interval. There is no significant room for such a term to be added in. The temperature relationship already accounts for the acceleration in atmospheric CO2.

The human emissions do fit the increase over time over the full period 1960-2011, even slightly better than your fit and certainly before 1960. There is no room for temperature in the accelleration of atmospheric CO2.
Main point: different processes at work, as vegetation reacts in opposite ways to short and longer time temperature changes.
BTW, I have changed the plot from direct effect from human emissions to the effect of the total CO2 above equilibrium. That makes that the small variations in year by year increasing human emissions have little effect on the decay speed.

Temperature does. It’s right here. As far as the relationship to proxy data before 1958, Salby has explained how it is manifested.

That is the only thing temperature fits, thanks to an arbitrary baseline. All other observations don’t fit the theory. Salby’s backcalculation of diffusion in firn and ice cores is pure theoretical to fit his hypothesis, but has no bearing in any known or observed migration.

It is impossible for nature to work in this fashion.

As in nature so many different, even opposite processes are simultaneously at work, I shouldn’t bet that nature doesn’t hold a lot of such suprises…

“The human emissions do fit the increase over time over the full period 1960-2011, even slightly better than your fit and certainly before 1960.”

No. They don’t. They cannot account for both the short and the long term like the temperature can.

“As in nature so many different, even opposite processes are simultaneously at work, I shouldn’t bet that nature doesn’t hold a lot of such suprises…”

Not this one. It is impossible to perform causal filtering in a natural system with no phase delay or distortion. You are inserting epicycles where none are needed. The temperature relationship explains all of it.

I’ll say this about Ferdinand Engelbeen’s amateurish and nasty attacks on the dead Beck and Jawarowski and the whole body of pre-1983 chemical (Pettenkoffer etc) CO2 measurements going right back to the 1850s.

Steve, in general I had friendly discussions with Ernst Beck during several years, including a personal discussion at the home of Arthur Rörsch in Leiden, The Netherlands.

I had not the slightest problem with Ernst as person, admired the tremendous amount of work he has done to recover all the old data, but I have a lot of objections against his compilation.

The main problem I had is that he lumped everything together: the good, the bad and the ugly data, without much quality control.
E.g. the data of Barrow, quite interesting as that is currently a “baseline” station for global CO2 data. Unfortunately the micro-Schollander equipment was accurate to +/- 150 ppmv, as the equipment was intended to measure CO2 in exhaled air. It was calibrated against outside air. If the values read were between 200-500 ppmv, the equipment was ready to use. The calibration figures were used by Beck in his compilation.
Something similar happened with the seawater data of Wattenberg: Beck interpretated the data of 0 meter depth in the tables as being from the atmosphere, while these were from seawater at the surface.

About Jaworosky, I never met him, but had some personal correspondence with him. It seems that he was a very nice person. Of course no problem with that, but problems with his science.

I had asked him why he persisted that there was an arbitrary shift in the ice core data to match the Mauna Loa data, while he obviously had used the wrong column in the table by Neftel (the ice age instead of the average gas age). He responded that there was no difference between gas age and ice age, as all ice was immediately sealed by remelt layers (there was mention of only one remelt layer at near closing depth in Neftel’s work).
But what closed the door for me was his story that because of cracks in the ice, due to drilling, transport and storage, the levels of CO2 in the ice cores would go down, while the ambient air was 100-200 ppmv higher than what is measured in the bubbles.
If anyone can explain to me how CO2 can migrate from 180 ppmv within an ice core to 370 ppmv in ambient air, I may change my opinion.

No. They don’t. They cannot account for both the short and the long term like the temperature can.

Temperature is responsible for the short term CO2 rate of change variability, the emissions (via the increase in the atmosphere) are responsible for the longer term change. No need for curve fitting via an arbitrary baseline.

Not this one. It is impossible to perform causal filtering in a natural system with no phase delay or distortion. You are inserting epicycles where none are needed. The temperature relationship explains all of it.

There is no filtering at work in either case. There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.

Of course there is. You have an offset yourself in the beginning CO2 concentration. That offset has been assumed based on a model for the capture of CO2 in the ice. A model which, BTW, Salby has shown to be erroneous.

“There is no filtering at work in either case.”

Any process which removes the long term leaving the short term is a filtering process.

“There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.”

In that case, you have contradicted yourself. Because your previous claim very specifically states that the processes which induce short term changes in CO2 from temperature are attenuated over the longer term.

A) the temperature relationship holds across all frequencies – the rate of change of CO2 with temperature matches in phase in both the long term trend and in the short term variation. That’s all you need to fit it the whole thing.

B) For your idea to work, there has to be high pass filtering of the temperature related processes, and blending with low pass filtered human inputs. It is, in the first place, absurd that the one would be high passed and the other low passed – the same processes are operating on both. In the second place, high pass filters in the natural world always induce phase distortion at the crossover frequency. There is no observable phase distortion anywhere in the record. The rate of change of CO2 is always coincident with the temperature for every trend or bobble in the record.

So, what you are arguing for is something very exotic and unnatural. That just doesn’t happen in the real world. Occam’s Razor comes down very hard on the simplest explanation which fits the data: atmospheric CO2 is the result of a temperature dependent process which is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that process is effectively independent of human activity.

“Are you saying HE had an ulterior motive or that HE was the one wanting to distract from the science?”

I think the issue was raised after his sacking. What was he supposed to do? Turn the other cheek? Would you?

=================================

Nick Stokes says:

“The extra CO2 is there because we put it there.”

We agree on that. Humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere. I also agree with Bart that ocean outgassing causes a rise in CO2. There is solid empirical evidence showing that to be an observed fact over many years.

Now would you also agree that the added CO2 has been harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere? Because that is what the evidence [and the lack of any evidence of global harm from CO2] shows.

Of course there is. You have an offset yourself in the beginning CO2 concentration. That offset has been assumed based on a model for the capture of CO2 in the ice. A model which, BTW, Salby has shown to be erroneous.

A small difference: CO2 levels are measured in ice cores, only the average age of that level need some modelling, but as the error in average age in this case is not more than a few years, that is no problem at all. In your case you need to tune the baseline to fit the longer term increase.
And Salby has nothing proven, he only calculated a non-existing diffusion of CO2 in firn and ice to fit his theory…

Any process which removes the long term leaving the short term is a filtering process.

In my “model” there is no filtering as the short term effect of temperature is a different process (with no long term effect) than for the long term effect. The former regulates the fast processes in ocean surface and vegetation. The latter influences the equilibrium setpoint for the slower process of deep oceans uptake and more permanent uptake by vegetation.

“There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.”
In that case, you have contradicted yourself. Because your previous claim very specifically states that the processes which induce short term changes in CO2 from temperature are attenuated over the longer term

Again, different processes at work: the fast processes have a limited capacity, thus have no long-term effect. These result in the fast responses (1-3 years) to temperature changes. The slower processes go on near forever, but are far less influenced by temperature changes.

The simplest explanation that we stay anchored to the ground is that the Earth is flat. Occam’s Razor does not demand the simplest explanation, it recommends the simplest explanation consistent with theory and observations.

The hypothesis that we are responsible for a significant portion of the atmospheric CO2 rise is inconsistent with those.

FerdiEgb says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:21 pm

I cannot argue this further with you along these lines. What you are arguing is unmoored to physical reality.

A) the temperature relationship holds across all frequencies – the rate of change of CO2 with temperature matches in phase in both the long term trend and in the short term variation. That’s all you need to fit it the whole thing.

The temperature relationship holds for the short term variation, it is already more problematic for the period before 1960 and absurd for ice ages – interglacials. Except if one accepts that different processes are at work.

B) For your idea to work, there has to be high pass filtering of the temperature related processes, and blending with low pass filtered human inputs.

Again, no filtering at all, only a limited capacity of the fast response processes on temperature changes. And little effect of temperature on the slower processes, which are mainly pressure dependent.

atmospheric CO2 is the result of a temperature dependent process which is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that process is effectively independent of human activity.

The atmospheric CO2 increase is the result of human emissions pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the removal of which is a pressure dependent process, quite independent of temperature.

I cannot argue this further with you along these lines. What you are arguing is unmoored to physical reality.

Bart, all you have is a good fit of a curve. And from that you insist that temperature is the only variable that counts and all other variables that may do the same job as good, or even better, don’t count.

That your solution does violate all other known observations is of no interest.
That your solution doesn’t take into account that any increase in the atmosphere also influences inflows and outflows is of no interest.

It is an excellent fit of the curve. Too good to be happenstance. And, it accounts for everything.

I cannot get it across to you because you do not have the experience I have. But, it is also fully consistent with the behavior of feedback systems in general.

It has always been a stretch to believe the conventional wisdom that CO2 levels have been remarkably stable for millennia, yet humans have upset that balance in just a few decade’s time. The notion of a rock-steady stable equilibrium co-existing with such hair-trigger sensitivity to external perturbation – these are just not two properities which go together. They are very much mutuallly exclusive in real world systems.

Really. The correlation is especially good with the highest accuracy measurements.

And, it isn’t cherry picking to go where the action is, which is with the oceans. That’s like saying proving gravity by throwing a ball up in the air and watching it come back down is cherry picking because you are doing the experiment on a massive object.

Because it obviously suffers from resolution problems, but it’s not too bad a fit for all that.

What is your point, anyway? Finding a better fit with SH data merely means that is where the action is mostly occurring. Finding a worse one in the NH does not negate the excellent fit in the SH, any more than finding a black hole negates propagation of light from the Earth. If you look for something, and find it, why would you continue looking, suggesting that if you do not find it elsewhere, you never found it there? This is bizarre.

“The atmospheric CO2 increase is the result of human emissions pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the removal of which is a pressure dependent process, quite independent of temperature.”

You probably know more than I do about this, but when I look at this 50+ year chart, I see that CO2 levels appear to be entirely temperature dependent — both rising and falling ∆CO2 levels. CO2 follows ∆T, both up and down, no?

[If you have a comparable chart showing empirical observations of ∆CO2 vs ∆pressure, I would like to see it, please.]

The point is, as Ferdinand says, if you rely on curve fitting, that’s all you’ve got. And if the fit fails, you have nothing.

What you have is a reasonable alignment at high frequency – basically ENSO. And for the SH air temp, there is not too bad alignment at multi-decadal. From that you want to make an inference that temperature controls CO2. Of course this completely disregards elementary mass balance. But if the multi-decadal alignment fails rather frequently, as with global air temp or SST, then there’s no basis for inference at all.

“…I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates.”

Then how do you explain this? It is clear that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.
____________________________

Hello DB – I looked at this data very closely in 2008 and cannot agree with the argument you presented above.

I do not have the time to dissect exactly what is wrong with your argument but am quite sure it is wrong. It could be an error introduced by differences in the exact time that the measurements were taken.

In 2008 I carefully examined these parameters using both CO2 data from Mauna Loa and also the Global CO2 numbers, and also temperature data from Hadcrut3 surface temperatures (ST) and the better quality UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures. All the data and analyses are included in a spreadsheet with my icecap.us paper. Have a look if you want to pursue this further.

Originally, my conclusion was derided as wrong, but later it was grudgingly accepted as correct and then dismissed by the warmists as a “feedback effect” – a thoughtless “cargo cult” explanation that is without merit, in my opinion.

Remember, dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with LT temperature, and the integral CO2 has inflection points about 9 months later. So you cannot day that there is evidence that CO2 drives temperature.

Staff in academia often get treated differently according to the whims, prejudices, bias, misperceptions, etc of those in senior management. It’s human nature. For some its simply routine procedure to blackball those outside the ‘click'; that is the extent of their understanding of human beings and society-if you are different, you are no good. But of course this means that sometimes people make gross mistakes on how other people are treated etc, but what I really don’t get is, why there isnt procedures and ways to reduce such mistakes, to strengthen the internal processes and regulation etc of such administrations, so that such is less likely to occur. Why are university administrations so able to ignore the values which are already established in the rest of the community?

” The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.”

Etheridge et al. 1998

“The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from1940–1955. The CH4
and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric
CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of 3.0PgCy-11 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13 CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al.,1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.”

Meure et al 2006

Finally I note that the (negative) ‘offset’ i.e the fraction of the global surface average CO2 (ppmv) by which the average near surface CO2 level over the entire great Southern Ocean and Antarctica (below 30 S) CO2 level lags below that global average has been falling from -0.33% in 1982 nearly every single year for at least 3 decades until it is about -0.60±0.10% now. If anyone doesn’t believe me then they can simply get all the NOAA data for all the relevant SH stations and prove it to themselves. The negative offset from the global average over this vast area now more or less matches the offset at the centre of the South East Pacific gyre (Easter Island Station; EIC) which has always averaged around -0.65±0.10% since complete annual records began there in 1994. Meantime, the (positive) offset i.e the fraction of the global surface average CO2 (ppmv) by which the average near surface CO2 level at the NH Mauna Loa Station (MLO) leads the global average has remained about +0.20±0.10 over 3 decades since 1982.

I’m not saying that. I am saying exactly the opposite….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think in Allan’s first comment on CO2 in his first paragraph, he inverted the meaning by mistake. This is the exact comment:

Allan MacRae says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am

Actually Steve, I don’t mind your post of 7:05 pm – not sure how I missed it with my 9:22pm – maybe it was not visible yet. My apologies.

To be clear, I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates. Bart wrote this point on August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm….

The effects of the late 1970s recession can be seen clearly in the plot of manmade CO2 emissions for the period say 1978 to 1990, whereas there appears no change and in particular no corresponding dip say between 1978 to 1982 in the ML accumulated emissions plot.

That observational fact supports the general thrust of the point made by Bart, but of course, it could have something to do with sink responses, or by chance some change in natural variation (eg., a boom in ant/termite population which emiited correspondingly more CO2 than usual during those years thereby offsetting the reduced manmade CO2 emissions – an unlikely co-incidence but changes in natural variation must be a possible reason especially as man emits only a small percentage of annual global CO2 emissions).

Further to the point made by Gail, whilst I do not like interpreting what other meant to say, I concur with her view that Allan in effect made a simple typo in his comment (Allan MacRae says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am) and did not mean to suggest that CO2 drives temperature, but rather the other way around (ie., temperature drives CO2).

This mistake is apparent from his concluding observation “not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates.” ,ie., he was taking a position opposite to that of the consensus and additionally he was agreeing with the view expressed by Bart.

@Steve Short says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:22 pm
////////////////////////////

But manmade CO2 emissions because of the additional industrial activity significantly increased during the run up and throughout the war, ie., during the period 1935 to 1945 and the fact that this increase is not seen in the ice data is of concern.

The observation about shipping (“…shipping effects (noting e.g. bunker oil had much higher Fe and S levels prior to the 1960s when oil desulfurization took off etc?…”) is a patently bad one, Whilst it may be the case that bunker fuel, back then, had higher sulphur and iron levels, that has no bearing on the amount of CO2 emitted upon burning the bunkers. These aerosols may have had an effect on incoming solar and created some form of shading, thereby possibly cooling temperatures, but they do not mean that less CO2 was emitted during the war years.

It is an inescapable fact that there was a significant increase in industrial activity and a significant increase in the amout of shipping and shipping movements with a corresponding increase in manmade CO2 emissions. If the increased CO2 emitted during this period is not seen in the ice core record, there is reason to be cautious as to how accurately the ice records capture changes in CO2 emissions at least in relatively short time scales.

The very same point can be made with equal force against your assumption that CO2 drives temperatures given that there is no correlation in the thermometer record (or sat record) between CO2 and temperature. For example whilst CO2 emiisions increased during the period 1880 to 1910, 1940 to 1975, temperatures fell. During the period late 1990s to date, temperatures have remained about static not withstanding a steady and unrelenting increase in CO2 9together with such CO2 that remained residenct from emissions taking place earlier within the 20th Century).

The same appears to be the case in the paleo record when there are several examples of anti correlation, ie., periodas when CO2 levels are rising and yet temperature is falling, and periods when CO2 levels are falling and temperature rising. Then on top of that you have the problem that it appears the case that CO2 lags temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years.

On the basis of your own argument “…then there’s no basis for inference at all.”

Bart says:August 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm “Occam’s Razor does not demand the simplest explanation, it recommends the simplest explanation consistent with theory and observations. The hypothesis that we are responsible for a significant portion of the atmospheric CO2 rise is inconsistent with those.”

No it isn’t because we know that when we burn hydrocarbons CO2 is one of the byproducts. There is no great mystery there nor is there any great mystery as to whether we have actually been burning fossil fuels. For humans *NOT* to have contributed significantly to the rise in CO2 you’d need a mechanism that removed the additional CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels + some other mechanism that added a similar amount of CO2.
Now perhaps that is exactly what has happened but without some startling observational data and some pretty solid theoretical work the scientifically parsimonious explanation is that the rise in CO2 has, to a large degree, come from human activity.

Correcting my post of August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am:
To be clear, I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that temperature drives CO2.

Note to file: Do not post at 3:48am – you make too many errors pre-coffee..
What time is it now? 3:45am local time – darnit!

without some startling observational data and some pretty solid theoretical work the scientifically parsimonious explanation is that the rise in CO2 has, to a large degree, come from human activity.

Oh! But there is much such “startling observational data”!
For example, atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature at all time scales.

Ice cores indicate that at the longest time scale the lag is ~800 years, and Mauna Loa data indicates that at the shortest time scale the lag is ~9 months. This latter finding was first reported in 1990
(ref Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’, Nature 343, 709 – 714, 22 February 1990)
and has been confirmed by several subsequent studies of other atmospheric CO2 data sets but the subsequent studies show the time of the lag varies between 6 and 9 months depending on latitude..

A cause cannot follow its effect, and this implies the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is induced by global temperature rise.

However, this does not exclusively show Bart is right (see the first reference above which is to one of our papers).

Salby is of the same kind as you: extremely good in theory, but lacks insight in what happens in nature. Like calculating a huge non-existing diffusion in ice which should give negative values for CO2 in several periods…

Nope. If a sink has limited capacity, then once it is saturated, it is saturated. It will not continue to function on short timelines but not on longer ones. It will simply cease altogether.

It ceases at longer timelines but still works on short ones, because that are equilibrium reactions: both the oceans surface and vegetation growth/decay react on temperature changes up and down. The sink may become a source and vv.

This is the kind of thing I mean. Your viewpoint is unphysical. It is a mishmash of things you want to believe, but it has no anchor in physical reality.

There is plenty of literature out that shows the short term response of the ocean surface to changes in the atmosphere. And the short half life (~1 year) to equilibrium. And the saturation, because of the Revelle factor. Your view that only temperature is responsible for all processes is unphysical.

“…the removal of which is a pressure dependent process, quite independent of temperature.”
Now that truly is absurd.

That only shows that you have no idea what happens in natural processes. The uptake and release of CO2 to/from the oceans is mainly pressure dependent. If there is no pressure difference between the atmosphere and the ocean surface, then there is no uptake or release.
Of course, temperature governs the pCO2 of the ocean waters, but that is not more than 16 microatm/K. As the real pressure difference in the tropics is ~350 microatm and near the poles ~250 microatm, a 16 microatm change hardly plays a role.
Moreover, 3-4 years of human emissions already exceeds such a change…

What you see is a high correlation on short term. That is caused by fast processes like plant growth and decay and the exchanges with the ocean surface. These are limited in capacity, so their uptake or release is only for a part of the CO2 increase over time, but they are the cause of the variability and the correlation.

Other processes are at work for the uptake of the rest of the human emissions: deep ocean exchanges and more permanent storage in vegetation. These are much slower processes but have near unlimited capacity. These processes are mainly pressure dependent and hardly influenced by temperature. That can be seen if you compare the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere with the total release of CO2 by humans:
Compare that to the changes in temperature:

It is quite obvious that the short term CO2 variation in uptake capacity is caused by the short term temperature variations and that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…

There is evidence that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is predominantly captured close to the source by increased uptake by plants. CO2 is scarce in the atmosphere and plants thrive on it.

If indeed the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily caused by man rather than from natural sources, then it appears probable that deforestation is the main culprit, not the burning of fossil fuels.

The imminent global cooling (hope not) should solve this question, but could also cause great harm to humankind and the environment.

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West
Posted on 31 October 2011

[excerpt]

“ It seems that the Japanese have a nice tool on orbit and set out to figure out who was a “maker” and who was a “taker” in the CO2 production / consumption game. Seems they found out that CO2 was largely net absorbed in the industrialized ‘west’ and net created in the ’3rd world’. “

See also Murry Salby’s video at time 10:38 – the major global CO2 sources are NOT in industrial areas – they are in equatorial areas where deforestation is rampant.

As I’ve posted to Ferdinand Engelbeen in the past:
“Variations in biomass (e.g. deforestation and reforestation) may be the huge variable that would make your mass balance equation work better.”

As Richard Courtney ably summarizes above:
“The unresolved issues are
(a) what is the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle?
(b) how does the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle vary?
(c) what causes the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary?
(d) does the anthropogenic CO2 emission induce the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary discernibly?”

To summarize:

This is an important scientific debate about the carbon cycle and the primary sources of increasing atmospheric CO2. It is entirely possible, some say it is probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, others say it IS, and the scientific debate goes on.

To be clear, however, the only significant apparent impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, because CO2 is a plant food.

The claim that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming is being falsified by these facts:
– there has been no net global warming for 10 to 15 years, despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
– predictions of catastrophic global warming are the result of deeply flawed climate computer models that are inconsistent with actual observations;
– the leading proponents of catastrophic global warming hysteria have been shown in the Climategate emails to be dishonest.

A decade ago, we wrote:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

Since then there has been NO net global warming.

Also a decade ago, I (we) predicted global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030. When this cooling does occur, many of these scientific questions will be answered.

In the meantime, society should reject the claims of the global warming alarmists, because they have a demonstrated track record of being wrong in ALL their major climate alarmist predictions.

In science, such an utter failure on one’s predictive track record is a fair and objective measure of the falsification of one’s hypotheses.

Repeating, from 2002, with ten more years of confirming data:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

NASA now:
“The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood.”

Me two weeks ago (how am I doing so far?):http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in Salt Lake City:http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
[video src="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4" /]
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule. In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/co2-police-can-now-be-equipped-to-rat-out-cities/#comment-988034
Billy Liar says: May 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in SLC:http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
Thank you Billy.
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
[video src="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4" /]
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule. In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
These observations, if correct, suggest that human combustion of fossil fuels is NOT the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
These observations are consistent with my 2008 paper, which notes that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
In what has become “mainstream climate science”, there are many inconsistencies that have been resolved by data fabrication and contortions of logic.
There appears to be a much simpler explanation. Temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse.
___________
Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

“I think in Allan’s first comment on CO2 in his first paragraph, he inverted the meaning by mistake.”

Thanks for the correction, Gail. My mistake was scanning Dr MacRae’s post and then responding too quickly. I think Allan and I are on the same page.

I think we all agree that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is plenty of empirical evidence proving that. It seems that FerdiEnb thinks there are other forces in play at longer time scales. But as Richard Courtney convincingly shows, ∆CO2 still follows ∆T on much longer time scales.

I am still interested in finding a chart showing that ∆T is caused by ∆CO2. Despite my numerous requests, no one has ever produced one that I’ve seen. To me, empirical evidence trumps everything else. We have solid evidence showing that global land and ocean T controls atmospheric CO2 levels. I am willing to accept contrary evidence — but I have to see it with my own eyes since I’m a Doubting Thomas on that question. Ferdi has patiently tried to explain, but maybe I’m slow to learn. If the claimed effect exists, then there must be some verified evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. But I have never seen any such evidence.

The whole carbon scare is predicated on the assertion that CO2 controls global T. All I’m saying is: ‘Show me’. But after many months of asking, still no joy. ☹

It is quite obvious that the short term CO2 variation in uptake capacity is caused by the short term temperature variations and that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…

No, It is quite obvious that the short term CO2 variation in uptake capacity is caused by the short term temperature variations
butthere is no evidence of any kind that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…

This is because
1.
the short-term sequestration is limited by the maximum exchange rate of CO2 between air and ocean
but
2.
the long-term sequestration is limited by the maximum transfer rate of CO2 between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean.

If we understood the dynamics of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 then we would have definitive evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole. This is because, as our paper
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
says

the annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere,

Our paper shows that

A.
The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year
but
B.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 indicates the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle do not absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year

The important question is;Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

Our paper explains that this question can be answered by assuming the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle has altered. And at issue is whether such an alteration has had a natural or an anthropogenic cause.

There is evidence that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is predominantly captured close to the source by increased uptake by plants. CO2 is scarce in the atmosphere and plants thrive on it.

The 13C/12C ratio changes over time show a different picture: these are quite consistent with human emissions, not including deforestation. The whole biosphere, including deforestation was a small net source of CO2 until ~1990 and a growing sink thereafter. Currently absorbing ~1 GtC/year from the ~9 GtC increase by humans. That is deduced from the oxygen balance.

The main sinks are the deep oceans. One can calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges from the theoretical change in 13C/12C caused human emissions and the observed changes:

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West
Posted on 31 October 2011

The image given by chiefio is only for one summer month, July 2009, when NH forests are huge sinks for CO2. If you look at the January 2010 image, it is all reverted:http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html
I suppose that the comment of Salby, like many before him, is based only on the July image…

These observations, if correct, suggest that human combustion of fossil fuels is NOT the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.

You are looking at the daily noise at a place where it is near impossible to see any human influence. Although there are places where one can see the daily peak of CO2 at rush hours if under inversion, in general the human emissions are too small to be detected in the huge natural noise. It is like finding a trend in sealevel via a tide gauge: one need at least 25 years of data to filter out the trend from the huge noise.
In the case of human emissions, one need 2-4 years to get enough data to separate the trend from the noise…

Do you have anything showing that the rise in CO2 is definitively the cause of rising global temperatures? I am still looking for a clear cause-and-effect chart.

I had misunderstood your question…
I am pretty sure that the recent rise in CO2 is not caused by temperature (there is no natural process that can do that without a negative feedback reaction from the increase in the atmosphere), but by humans. Even if Bart and Salby come with a physically impossible continuous extra CO2 inflow from a sustained temperature difference.

If the increase will have an influence on temperature is a more difficult question to answer. Theoretically yes, but the question is how much: theoretically a doubling of CO2 gives not more than 0.9 K increase in temperature at the surface, based on the absorption characteristics of CO2. But everything depends of the feedbacks: lots of positive feedbacks (according to the models), lots of negative feedbacks (according to the skeptics, myself included).

To know who is right, we may need another 15 years or so, when we have had a full PDO/NAO cycle and the result of the current decrease in solar activity and a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. Until then the possible signal is too weak to be separated from the noise…

there is no evidence of any kind that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…

Except that human emissions fit with all observations and all other (theoretical) explanations fail one or more observations…

Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

Different processes at work. For a temperature increase:

Seasonal temperature effect (~5 ppmv/K):
– positive for oceans (~90 GtC CO2 release, same back into the oceans at cooling)
– negative for vegetation (~60 GtC CO2 uptake in spring/summer, same back in fall/winter; vegetation at mid- and highlatitudes is dominant in the NH, less in the SH).

The fast dynamics are in the ocean surface and direct response of vegetation, but these are limited in capacity. The slow response is from the deep oceans and more permanent storage in vegetation. The latter shows that the increase in temperature since the LIA had not more effect than an increase of 8 ppmv. The rest of the 100 ppmv increase is from…

For an increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere beyond the temperature dictated equilibrium, the fast responses are only taking away some 10% of any excess atmospheric CO2 into the ocean surface. The rest needs more time…

The global CO2 flux is complicated and I agree with Richard that we do not yet know the answer.

And I agree with Ferdinand that we probably need more time and more good data, especially during a global cooling cycle, to help decipher the variables.

Ferdinand, it would not surprise me greatly if there is indeed a humanmade component to the increased atmospheric CO2. And indeed it could be partly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, not just deforestation. But as Richard correctly states, the fossil fuel component is a small part of natural global CO2 flux.

Also, with regard to the Japanese satellite data, the CO2 data shows that there is Summer in July in the Northern Hemisphere and Winter in the South, and , and Summer in January in the Southern Hemisphere and Winter in the North, and that Nature, not Man dominates the CO2 cycle. No surprises there. This is consistent with my earlier statements. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html

Also, I understood from the work of others that the C13/C12 argument “did not hold water”, so to speak.

It would also not surprise me greatly if, during the next natural cooling cycle, atmospheric CO2 actually declined even as fossil fuel emissions increased, as happened in several 12-month intervals from 1959 to 1974 (see below).

To summarize the CO2 balance – we do just not know enough to separate the variables, imo, but we can have our opinions.

On the alleged global warming crisis, I think we know enough now to dismiss this phenomenon as deeply flawed misinterpretations of climate science (to be very generous to global warming alarmists – deliberate falsehood and fraud appear more probable).

I think it is highly probable that the so-called “sensitivity of global temperature to increased atmospheric CO2” is so small as to be inconsequential, if it exists at all. There is evidence that this “sensitivity” does not even exist at these CO2 concentrations, since the only signal I have been able to detect in the data is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, ergo …

… and the entire alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming crisis does not exist, as we confidently wrote more than a decade and more than a trillion dollars (of squandered global resources) ago.

Before responding to your post, I recognise there may be onlookers who are not aware of the long history of disagreement between us. So, for their benefit, I point out that for well over a decade you and I have been arguing about the carbon cycle and attribution of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our disagreements have often been ferocious and always mutually respectful.

I now write in continuation of that spirit of bluntness.

You say

human emissions fit with all observations and all other (theoretical) explanations fail one or more observations…

Please, Ferdinand, we have been over this many times and you know it is NOT true that “all other (theoretical) explanations fail one or more observations…”.

And, yes,” human emissions fit with all observations” but the “fit” is poor.

For example, the IPCC uses 5-year smoothing to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2. But there is no justifiable reason for this: the data is ‘tortured’ to force it to agree.

2-year smoothing is justifiable because emissions from one year may be wrongly accounted as being in an adjacent year.
And 3-year smoothing is justifiable because different reports of emissions may be reported for ’12 month periods’ with different start dates.

But there can be no valid reason to smooth over 4, 5 or more years.
The IPCC uses 5-year smoothing because using smoothing over shorter times fails to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2.

The 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing in the direction expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission. But it has an equal chance of changing in the expected direction or in the other direction. Importantly,
the 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing at a rate which differs by a factor of 3 from the rate of change expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission.

As I said, the human emissions do “fit” with all observations” but the “fit” is poor.

It is important to note that an ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole. So, the ability to force a “fit” between the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and the rise in atmospheric CO2 is only evidence that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 cannot be rejected as a possible cause of the rise.

And I posed the question

Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

To which you have answered

Different processes at work. For a temperature increase: …

Say what!?
Your answer is a non sequitor. It has no relation to the question.

I introduced the question by saying

A.
The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year
but
B.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 indicates the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle do not absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year.

This matters becausethe residual of the variation in each year is the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration of each year. If the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle did absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year then there would be no rise.

It doesn’t fail. It is next to perfect, about as good as you can expect to get. You are clutching at straws.

“Of course this completely disregards elementary mass balance.”

Of course it does not. The usual “mass balance” argument is a circular argument which has been debunked innumerable times.

“But if the multi-decadal alignment fails rather frequently, as with global air temp or SST, then there’s no basis for inference at all.”

Wrong. You could as easily claim that failure to track a stock market index is indicative of failure of the model. If the variable being tracked is only tangentially related, then it will only tangentially track. In this case, the main dynamic is with ocean temperatures in the SH.

richard verney says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:03 am

Excellent observation.

Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:50 am

“Now perhaps that is exactly what has happened but without some startling observational data and some pretty solid theoretical work the scientifically parsimonious explanation is that the rise in CO2 has, to a large degree, come from human activity.”

Observation is right here. It indicates that your explanation is, by far, too parsimonious to hold up.

richardscourtney says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am

“Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all? “

Indeed!

beng says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:12 am

“Ferdinand has it all over you.”

Ferdinand has a narrative, which he has practiced and polished over several years. But, it has no physical foundation, no appreciation for the necessary dynamics of flows.

“Even Stokes sees that.”

Suggesting that you do not carry such high regard of Stokes’ opinions in general. It is curious that you would decide his opinion worthy of consideration now.

Look, I cannot stop you from believing what you want to believe. I can only show you the evidence. In the end, you will see. As I have shown, the rate of change of CO2 fits temperature perfectly. Meanwhile, the superficial resemblance between emissions and CO2 is even now diverging. In the years ahead, the divergence will become so pronounced that people will look back and wonder how they could ever have held such a misconception that humans have any significant effect on CO2 concentration at all.

Steve Short says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:07 am
/////////////////////////

Steve,

I note that you are implying that any increase in CO2 emissions during the war years was absorbed by oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) and this is why there was no spike in observationakl measurements of CO2 in these years (and even explains why there was a fall in the lvel of CO2 during those years).

It seems highly implausable that sulphur and iron particles emitted at funnel height get trapped by sea spray which breaks over the fore-deck but rarely to bridge height, still less to funnekl height (especially as funnel smoke is warm and hot air rising would carry the particulates to altitude).

If sea spray is as dense and prevalent as you suggest, it would be rather difficult for DWLWIR to penetrate it and reach the ocean surface below. As you are no doubt aware, LWIR (due to its wavelength and the absorption characteristics of water) can only penetrate matters of a few nanometers in water; about 50% of all LWIR is fully absorbed within just 3 or 4 nanometers, and only about 10% can penetrate as much as 10 nanometers. This would suggest that DWLWIR would have little global effect, being absorbed by ocean spray merely assisting evaporation of already airbourn water particles (ie., the ocean spray), and DWLWIR would predominantly be a land based phenomena.

I accept the possibility of the low level cloud point, and I do accept that eventually it gets rained out predominantly back over the oceans, but not exclussively.

Is there any hard evidence (ie., something other than anedodal evidence of your father) for a dramatic increase in the abundance of oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) during the war years and a fall back in the prolification of that organism after the war? That is at the root of your argument and I would wish to see evidence on population.

I would point out that, whilst bunker quality was more variable back in the war years, I consider that you overlook the fact that it is only relatively recently (by which I mean effectively only this centrury, of note it was only in 2005 the IMO produced regulations capping sulphur content at 4.5%) that low sulphur emission regulations have been implemented, and even now they are not enforced world wide (there are of course designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas where enforcement is more rigorous).

Bunker fuels (I am ignoring gas oil which is not commonly used for main propulsion) with up to 4.5% sulphur are still in use (although HFO of this spec is being phased out by the latest IMO regulations which set a 2012 date for this but is not enforced world wide so one still sees the use of this fuel), and 3.5% is still quite common. Of course one can now procure low sulphur varities with less than 1.5% or even less than 1% (I am ignoring gas oil which is not commonly used for main propulsion at least not unless within designated sensitive zones) but fuel is only slowly finding its way into worldwide wide spread usage.

I have seen reports that claim that the 16 largest ships plying ocean trade today emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world put together!. I do not know how well researched and accurate that claim is, but the presence of such a claim does suggest that even with today’s recent trend for lower sulphur emissions, ships are still today emitting vast quantities of sulphur and accordingly, I doubt that during the war years the sulphur emissions were substantially higher than today. Today, there are far more bigger ships and far more trade (well before the relatively recent China downturn) such that total sulphur emissions are up compared to 1935/45 such that one would expect today to see the prolific blooming of oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae).

Whilst I have been involved in shipping for some 25 years, I am not aware of significant changes in the amount of iron in bunker fuels. Of course, particulates are of concern to the ship owner (because of engine damage/wear & tear), but my experience suggests that this is directed more at aluminium, silicone, nickel, vanadium content rather than iron.

What evidence do you have that the iron content of bunker fuel has significantly changed from the war years? Again, I would want to see some evidence that iron emitted by shipping during the war years was higher than that emitted today and this fuelled the blooming of the oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) to which you refer during the war years.

“I had misunderstood your question… I am pretty sure that the recent rise in CO2 is not caused by temperature…”

Ferdinand, what we are left with is this: All of the empirical evidence available to us shows that ∆CO2 follows ∆T, from years to hundreds of millennia. By your admission, there is no empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T [it may. I have always acknowledged that possibility, by saying that any effect from CO2 is too small to measure].

At current concentrations, adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. I understand why you are arguing the way you are, and you may be right. But I’m a “show me” kind of guy. If there is NO measurable evidence that something exists, then it is only speculation. Conjecture. Opinion. But it is hardly testable science.

The alarmist crowd got into trouble because they took the position that the primary cause of global warming is due to the rise in CO2. But there is no empirical evidence for that, none at all. No one has been able to produce a chart of real world temperatures that show any cause-and-effect between a rise in CO2, and a rise in temperature. All such charts are only coincidental overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted above do.

CO2 may cause some minuscule warming. Or maybe it doesn’t. We simply have no evidence showing that “carbon” is the cause of any global warming, and any opinions to the contrary are just that: opinions. Beliefs. Assumptions, etc.

“That would make sense if “all the anthropogenic CO2″ were much, but it is a trivial proportion of the CO2 flowing around the carbon cycle: almost all of the CO2 is in the deep oceans.”

LOL – so your Occam’s razored theory is that all of the human emissions have somehow got themselves locked up in the ocean but by magic coincidence a similar additional amount of CO2 has become released from the oceans neatly in tune with the rise of human consumption of fossil fuels?

There may be reasons to smooth even over 25 years, if the noise is far larger than the signal you wish to detect. That is done for e.g. the detection of a sealevel trend in the huge noise of waves and tides.

And there is hardly a difference between 3 or 5 years smoothing for the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere:
Only the 1992 Pinatubo eruption is a clear outlier (probably due to light scattering that increases CO2 uptake by vegetation). For the rest, the variability in atmospheric increase is from temperature variability, which influences the year by year sink rate. But the trend clearly is from human emissions.

the 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing at a rate which differs by a factor of 3 from the rate of change expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission.

Simple answer: the human “fingerprint” is diluted by the deep ocean exchanges. What goes into the oceans is the current isotopic composition. What comes out is the composition of 1000 years ago without human influence. That can be used to calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges:

The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year

My answer was right: there are different processes at work: the seasonal processes are fast but limited in capacity. That means that these processes can absorb and release some 15% of all CO2 in the atmosphere for a global change of 1 K, but then it stops, as full capacity for that temperature change is reached. If you want to get rid of more CO2 out of the atmosphere, you need the slower processes.

“Observation is right here. It indicates that your explanation is, by far, too parsimonious to hold up.”

Well it certainly is a nice graph. You do know what you’ve plotted don’t you? You have the DERIVATIVE of interpolated mean of CO2 measurements for one line and temperature for the other. OK now work out what that says – the short term rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature increases. That tells us nothing about the overall growth in CO2 in the atmosphere and tells us a lot about how the ACTUAL long term increase of CO2 is influenced by temperature beyond what we already know from the basic physics of CO2’s solubility in water.
Essentially your graph shows us that the RESIDUAL data of CO2 concentration *NOT* explained by the simpler upward growth of CO2 concentration is explained by yearly fluctuations in temperature. To use the vernacular – no sh!t Sherlock :). You’ve drawn a graph whose purpose is put the overall growth to one side and which provides some insight into the yearly wobbles in that growth.
Putting temperature and CO2 on the same scale you get this http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/from:1959/normalise
But lets have some more fun. You compared the derivative of atmospheric CO2 with temperature. Let’s flip that relationship around and see what we see. If global mean temp matches the derivative over time of CO2 concentration then the integral of global mean temp should also indicate your position when compared with CO2 concentration plotted over time.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/integral/normalise
Who is driving who?

Your post answers my having corrected your earlier error when I wrote to you

“That would make sense if “all the anthropogenic CO2″ were much, but it is a trivial proportion of the CO2 flowing around the carbon cycle: almost all of the CO2 is in the deep oceans.”

And your answer says

LOL – so your Occam’s razored theory is that all of the human emissions have somehow got themselves locked up in the ocean but by magic coincidence a similar additional amount of CO2 has become released from the oceans neatly in tune with the rise of human consumption of fossil fuels?

“A similar amount” has NOT been “released from the oceans”!

The annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Northern Hemisphere seasonal changes (decrease and increase) each year are approximately an order of magnitude greater than both the total annual increase and the total annual anthropogenic emission. This seasonal change is mostly release then absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans.

A difference of an order of magnitude is NOT “similar”.

I never cease to be amazed that few of the anonymous warmunists who post on blogs have learned it is better to be thought a fool than to make a post which proves they are a fool.

It doesn’t fail. It is next to perfect, about as good as you can expect to get. You are clutching at straws.

It fails for all periods outside the period for which it is fitted:
It completely fails the glacial-interglacial changes.
Of course, because the good fit over the period 1960-current, the ice cores CO2 measurements must be wrong. Or how a theory is “proven” by rejecting all observations that don’t fit the theory…

Of course it does not. The usual “mass balance” argument is a circular argument which has been debunked innumerable times.

Except that the theoretical alternative for the mass balance argument is proven wrong: any huge change in natural circulation that causes a similar increase in the atmosphere as human emissions must be in ratio with the near 3 times increase of these emissions over the period 1960-current. That would lead to a near 3 times reduction in residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the residence time slightly increased over the past decades, which is what can be expected for a relative stable throughput in a growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ferdinand has a narrative, which he has practiced and polished over several years. But, it has no physical foundation, no appreciation for the necessary dynamics of flows.

While vegetation is a proven sink for CO2, there is no valid physical foundation for any increase of CO2 fluxes out of the oceans based on a sustained temperature difference that isn’t counteracted by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Besides that the release of such huge quantities of extra CO2 from the oceans would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, despite the human emissions, but we see a firm DEcrease:
That shows the d13C change 1960-2000 for a change in deep ocean releases from 40 to 290 GtC/year, which is necessary if Bart’s theory was right. The observations simply go the other way out.

Meanwhile, the superficial resemblance between emissions and CO2 is even now diverging…

Not at all. The sink capacity btw does not depend of the year by year emissions, but of the total amount (=pressure) of CO2 above the (temperature dictated) equilibrium:
The fit of my “model” is even slightly better than yours, including over recent years…

Concerning the forced fit of atmospheric CO2 concentration to agree with global temperature data, I explained

But there can be no valid reason to smooth over 4, 5 or more years.

You have replied

There may be reasons to smooth even over 25 years, if the noise is far larger than the signal you wish to detect. That is done for e.g. the detection of a sealevel trend in the huge noise of waves and tides.

Well, there may be reasons for pigs to fly if their wings are large enough.

Your (and the IPCC) argument is that a proportion of the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the atmosphere because the natural sinks cannot cope with it. But the data indicates that if the extra emission of human origin was the only emission, then in some years, almost all of it seems to be absorbed into the sinks, and in other years almost none.

What is this “noise” which results in the disagreement between the emissions and the sequestration? And how can anyone know this “noise” is not the cause of the failure of the sinks to sequester all of the emission with the result of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

You say

And there is hardly a difference between 3 or 5 years smoothing for the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere:
Only the 1992 Pinatubo eruption is a clear outlier (probably due to light scattering that increases CO2 uptake by vegetation). For the rest, the variability in atmospheric increase is from temperature variability, which influences the year by year sink rate. But the trend clearly is from human emissions.

Well, “the hardly any difference” is sufficient to require the unjustifiable at least 5-year smoothing to force the desired “fit” between the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2.

I wrote

the 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing at a rate which differs by a factor of 3 from the rate of change expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission.

So, you admit the discrepancy of a factor of 3 between the magnitude of the observed isotope ratio change and the magnitude of the change expected if it were induced by the anthropogenic emission.

And the “fingerprint” is smudged beyond recognition if it is altered by a factor of 3. Your assumption that the alteration is “dilution” from deep ocean is only that: an assumption. And it is a circular argument to use that assumption as evidence for the observed isotope ratio change being antrhropogenic.

The difference between observation and expectation indicates that some natural factor is at least 3 times larger than the anthropogenic factor. Your explanation of this is only a plausible hypothesis. So, in actuality, it is possible that all the isotope change may be a result of the unknown natural factor which it is certain causes most of the isotope change.

I wrote

The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year

And, as I explained, you answered with a non sequitor. You have replied to that explanation saying

My answer was right: there are different processes at work: the seasonal processes are fast but limited in capacity. That means that these processes can absorb and release some 15% of all CO2 in the atmosphere for a global change of 1 K, but then it stops, as full capacity for that temperature change is reached. If you want to get rid of more CO2 out of the atmosphere, you need the slower processes.

I can only repeat that your answer is illogical nonsense. And again try to tell you why.

There are NO “different processes at work”.
The annual rise of CO2 for any year is the residual of the rise and fall of CO2 during that year.

The dynamics of the variation during each year show that the sequestration processes (i.e. the “fast” “seasonal processes”) can easily sequester ALL the annual CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) but they do not. But they do not, and that is why there is an annual rise of CO2 each year.

None of this disproves an anthropogenic or a natural cause for the observed rise of atmospheric CO2. But it does show there is no reason for anyone to assume the cause of the rise is anthropogenic or is natural in whole or in part.

‘LOL – so your Occam’s razored theory is that all of the human emissions have somehow got themselves locked up in the ocean but by magic coincidence a similar additional amount of CO2 has become released from the oceans neatly in tune with the rise of human consumption of fossil fuels?’

No, that is not it at all. Both natural and anthropogenic inputs are quickly sequestered away. The difference is that the natural inputs are overwhelmingly larger, so they have a much greater impact.

Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm

“That tells us nothing about the overall growth in CO2 in the atmosphere and tells us a lot about how the ACTUAL long term increase of CO2 is influenced by temperature beyond what we already know from the basic physics of CO2′s solubility in water.”

Have you ever taken a course in calculus? The differential equation is

This integrates to provide a very high fidelity reconstruction of atmospheric CO2, no human inputs required. At any time in the last 55 years since accurate measurements began, you can predict precisely what the atmospheric concentration will be at any later time solely by integrating the temperature relationship. Human inputs are superfluous.

Note that the plot shown is for GISS temperatures. All of the major temperature sets are more or less affinely related, so you can always find an affine model for a given set which integrates to the nominal CO2 concentration. The HADCRUT SH temperatures and the satellite temperatures are a better fit than GISS, and will necessarily produce a better fit in the overall integrated concentration, I just never got around to performing the integration with those data sets.

“Who is driving who?”

Obviously, temperature drives CO2. It would be absurd to say that temperature is determined by the rate of change of CO2. If that were the case, then you could drive CO2 to arbitrary concentration but, once you stopped driving it, the temperature would return to the equilibrium temperature.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm

“It fails for all periods outside the period for which it is fitted:”

No, your model for the proxy measurements fails. That is what Salby showed.

“…any huge change in natural circulation that causes a similar increase in the atmosphere as human emissions must be in ratio with the near 3 times increase of these emissions over the period 1960-current.”

Handwaving nonsense and circular logic.

“The fit of my “model” is even slightly better than yours, including over recent years…”

Your fit is only in the low frequency region. It is trivial to get affine agreement between two low frequency time series with comparable curvature. In the end, your agreement is merely a 50/50 coin flip. The temperature relationship, however, agrees across all frequencies. The odds of successfully doing that without there being an actual relationship are vanishingly small.

Well, well, well, Old Nyq. LOL, from your doggedly arguing above for CO2 being the driver of global temperature, we can now clearly see your motive for your vehement defense of those who mistreated Dr. Murry Salby who boldly and publicly states (in his 2012 book and in his April 18, 2013 Hamburg lecture) a compellingly persuasive argument for the opposite view.

Your opinion on the matter of his mistreatment, thus, has little probative value.

Your charts in that comment only show coincidental correlation. They are overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted do. Your simple overlay charts only show that for a very limited time, CO2 and T went in the same direction.

The charts I posted show that from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T caused ∆CO2. Those are verifiable empirical observations. But as I keep pointing out, there are no similar charts showing that ∆CO2 was the cause of ∆T. That is only your assertion.

You are avoiding thousands of years of empirical [real world] data, and instead arguing that your models are a sufficient explanation for your belief that CO2 is the cause of global warming. But that belief ignores all the empirical data. I think the reason is what Janice Moore pointed out: this has more to do with Dr Salby’s unconscionable treatment than with any scientific evidence.

I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect. I have been asking someone, anyone, to post such a chart for many months now. But no one has been able to locate one. Perhaps that is because any effect from CO2 is too small to measure?

So, will there ever come a time when you will admit that there is no testable empirical evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature? If so, when would that time be? Or have you already made up your mind, and decided the question to your satisfaction?

Re Janice Moore says: August 13, 2013 at 3:17 pm
..we can now clearly see your motive for your vehement defense of those who mistreated Dr. Murry Salby who boldly and publicly states…etc”

I’m afraid I’m less adept at the kind of faith based argument you seem to be using here – how does your point work exactly? If somebody doesn’t adhere to a tenet of your faith their arguments on anything (regardless of their content – which naturally you didn’t address) must be wrong? I can see the kind of brilliance within that idea but it isn’t for me. I prefer science and maths.

dbstealey says: August 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Your charts in that comment only show coincidental correlation. They are overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted do.”
A chart can’t show cause and effect. To show cause and effect you need a substantive theory behind the numerical or graphical relation.

“But as I keep pointing out, there are no similar charts showing that ∆CO2 was the cause of ∆T. That is only your assertion.”

Um no – it is my assertion and PHYSICS. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas – no mystery there. Sure we know that CO2 isn’t the only driver of temperature change – you can knock a strawman down over and over pretending that there are people who claim CO2 is the only factor in global mean temperature (here is a complete list of ‘warmist’ climate scientists of any significance who think that – … erm…that’s it)

“I think the reason is what Janice Moore pointed out: this has more to do with Dr Salby’s unconscionable treatment than with any scientific evidence.”

Wasn’t she saying the opposite? That I defended the Uni’s action because I think CO2 helps drive temperature? You seem to be saying the causality is the other way round. Or is it just crazy argument day? Either way round it isn’t a scientific or logical argument – amusing though, so thanks for the chuckle.

“I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect.”

Bart says: August 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm
“No, that is not it at all. Both natural and anthropogenic inputs are quickly sequestered away. The difference is that the natural inputs are overwhelmingly larger, so they have a much greater impact.”

Sorry but you keep forgetting which kinds of quantities you are considering. Total, seasonal changes and long term changes. Each of these are at different scales.
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may be small compared to the overall carbon cycle but they constitute a progressive increase of significance over the 20th century. Again no mystery there and necessarily it has to add to the total and make a net contribution to the net change over the twentieth century.

Well that answers that question – it IS crazy argument day. So apart from the poorly constructed ad-hominem do you have any rational argument to add?

OK you’ve got a bit of a one: “The annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Northern Hemisphere seasonal changes (decrease and increase) each year are approximately an order of magnitude greater than both the total annual increase and the total annual anthropogenic emission. This seasonal change is mostly release then absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans.”

We are talking about the long term increase in CO2 concentration. You are saying that ISN’T anthropoegnic because 1. it is small compared to seasonal changes (which is irrelevant) and 2. because you think the increase is temperature driven. Yet compare the long term increase with fossil fuel consumption and with anthropogenic emissions the relationship is clear. Now perhaps it is all just an amazing coincidence or perhaps you have an explanation. If you’ve got an explanation – great! Let’s hear it and spare us the rants about dogma stuff.

“Sorry but you keep forgetting which kinds of quantities you are considering. Total, seasonal changes and long term changes. Each of these are at different scales.”

This is gibberish. The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature. You never took any calculus courses, did you? I am afraid it is beyond my power to make up for your lack of training here.

I ask everyone to read my post and your reply: they are both short and I have here provided links which go to them.

Nyq Only, as my post explained, your original post was plain wrong: it was in error by an order of magnitude.

And, it seems you are unwilling to learn from information intended to assist you. I concluded my post saying

I never cease to be amazed that few of the anonymous warmunists who post on blogs have learned it is better to be thought a fool than to make a post which proves they are a fool.

That was not an ad hom. It was a statement of fact intended to induce you to think before posting.

But you did not learn from that statement so your reply does it again!

I am deliberately rejecting your request for me to not mention your “dogma stuff” because your reply again proclaims your dogma as an alternative to observed reality. I deal with reality and say when reality denies false beliefs such as yours.

Importantly, I strongly object to your supporting your dogma by posting falsehoods concerning what I have said.
The first falsehood in your reply to me says

We are talking about the long term increase in CO2 concentration. You are saying that ISN’T anthropogenic …

NO! How dare you!? I have never said that.

I say the data does not indicate whether that increase is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole. If you have any information of any kind to disprove my statement then I would be very pleased to hear it.

You do not have such information: nobody does. But you do have your dogma which decrees the increase has an anthropogenic cause.

You perceive a suggestion of doubt concerning the cause of the increase as a denial of an anthropogenic cause because your dogma decrees there cannot be such doubt: any such doubt is heresy.

Indeed, you claim that important information “is irrelevant”.
Well, it is “irrelevant” to your belief but it is very relevant to determination of the cause of the long-term rise.

None of this disproves an anthropogenic or a natural cause for the observed rise of atmospheric CO2. But it does show there is no reason for anyone to assume the cause of the rise is anthropogenic or is natural in whole or in part.

That is my clear position;
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IF ANYTHING DRIVES THE INCREASE because the available data does not enable anyone to know.

But your dogma tells you what must be driving it; i.e. the anthropogenic emission. And, therefore, you ‘know’ it is a heresy to question that belief so you ascribe a different belief to any heretic.

And you explicitly state your dogma in your reply when you write

Yet compare the long term increase with fossil fuel consumption and with anthropogenic emissions the relationship is clear.

No! It is NOT ”clear”. Indeed, it requires the data to be processed to force a fit between the two parameters.

But you ignore all evidence and proclaim your superstitious belief by writing to me

Now perhaps it is all just an amazing coincidence or perhaps you have an explanation. If you’ve got an explanation – great! Let’s hear it and spare us the rants about dogma stuff.

It is to be expected that there is a “coincidence” of your assertions with your dogma but not reality.

And, of course there are several possible explanations for the “coincidence”. For example, parsimony suggests you are an idiot so you are incapable of considering any information which conflicts with your superstitious belief in AGW.

And I don’t “rant”. That is another misperception induced by your superstitious belief.

No, your model for the proxy measurements fails. That is what Salby showed.

Ice core CO2 measurements are direct measurements. No model involved, except to calculate the resolution and the time delay between ice age and average gas age. Salby only showed a theoretical calculation of the smoothing, without any physical base, to “prove” his (and yours) theory of a continuous release of CO2 from a sustained temperature difference with an arbitrary baseline. Not only is that circular reasoning, it also implies negative CO2 values for long periods of time. Smoothing does hide fast changes, but it doesn’t change the average over the resolution period…

Handwaving nonsense and circular logic.

Sorry Bart, you know better: there is no difference in behaviour of human CO2 or natural CO2 (except a small one for different isotopes). The near threefold increase in rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration 1960-2012 must be caused by a threefold increase in turnover of natural CO2, if your theory holds, as also the human emissions near tripled in the same period.

Your fit is only in the low frequency region. It is trivial to get affine agreement between two low frequency time series with comparable curvature. In the end, your agreement is merely a 50/50 coin flip. The temperature relationship, however, agrees across all frequencies.

The fit is as good as yours for the high frequency changes based on yearly averages over the period 1960-current. The long term fits all trends, from multidecade to multimillennia. Yours completely fails over the full glacial-interglacial period over 800 kyr up to 1960 without arbitrary changes of the baseline (and coefficients). Just try to show the LGM-Holocene optimum change with the same baseline and factor as in the recent period…

The difference between observation and expectation indicates that some natural factor is at least 3 times larger than the anthropogenic factor. Your explanation of this is only a plausible hypothesis.

The natural factor even is 4.5 times larger, if my calculations are right. The point is that the oceans (or any other source except vegetation decay) have the wrong fingerprint: with more CO2 from the oceans (or volcanoes or rock weathering, or…), the 13C/12C ratio would go up, not down. That excludes the oceans as the main cause of the increase.
Of course, the “dilution” by oceanic CO2 theoretically could be additional, not throughput. But then the increase in the atmosphere would be 5.5 times the human emissions to give the same dilution of the human fingerprint, while the real increase is halve the human emissions…
BTW, vegetation is a proven (from the oxygen balance) sink for CO2 (the “greening earth”). Thus also not the cause of the 13C/12C ratio decline…

The charts I posted show that from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T caused ∆CO2.

The problem is that there is one period which is an exception…
CO2 lags temperature for seasons to several years with less than a year (and 4-5 ppmv/K).
CO2 lags temperature for multidecades to multimillennia with 50 to several thousand years (and ~8 ppmv/K).
But currently temperature lags CO2 increase over multiyears to multidecades, as there is no known natural physical process that may give over 100 ppmv/K as we now see over the past 50+ years…

Yes, all you say is true concerning the carbon isotope ratio change..
But none of that contradicts my point that your post quotes and answers. viz.

The difference between observation and expectation indicates that some natural factor is at least 3 times larger than the anthropogenic factor. Your explanation of this is only a plausible hypothesis.

Your claim that

The point is that the oceans (or any other source except vegetation decay) have the wrong fingerprint

is the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’.

Nobody knows the reason for the ratio change. Clearly, something is contributing much more to it than the anthropogenic emission. And that “something” may be responsible for all the change. Furthermore, as you say, you only know what does not have the correct ‘fingerprint’, and nobody can know what unknown unknowns may have the correct ‘fingerprint’.

Simply, you have shown it is possible to attribute A SMALL PART of the change to the anthropogenic emission.

But an ability to attribute a cause to an effect is not evidence that the attributed cause is the true cause in part or in whole. This is especially true when the attributed cause is known to NOT be responsible for most of the effect.

As I said

None of this disproves an anthropogenic or a natural cause for the observed rise of atmospheric CO2. But it does show there is no reason for anyone to assume the cause of the rise is anthropogenic or is natural in whole or in part.

My posts almost all go into long moderation or vanish. For example, my reply to Ferdinand has gone (I hope and assume) into the ‘bin’.

I wonder if others are having the same experience or my posts have been ‘singled-out; for some reason.

Richard

[Reply: Your posts are not being singled out for any particular reason. But both WordPress rules and Anthony’s rules cause comments with certain key words to be shunted into the spam folder for individual approval. In your case they have all been approved, although there is often a delay of up to a few hours depending on whether there is a mod on duty. Other comments that contain site Policy violations can be snipped or deleted entirely. Mods know the keywords Anthony uses, but WordPress doesn’t tell us their keywords or phrases. In general, we try to avoid censoring comments. — mod.]

Richard, in response to your question, one of my longer posts went into moderation for a while, although all did appear after a reasonably short time.

I very much appreciated this latest exchange on the “mass balance argument”, etc. Discussions like this will ultimately sort out the truth, and that will be a very good development for climate science.

I cannot agree with Nyq at all – his arguments seems to be religiously-based rather than scientific – he says “we KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. This is apparently a specious statement, either false or insignificant. There is NO compelling real-world observational evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming at these concentrations, and there IS compelling evidence that the actual effective “sensitivity of temperature to CO2” is near-zero or even non-existent, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and there has been NO significant global warming for ~10-20 years despite increased atmospheric CO2.

In summary, the evidence strongly suggests that the alleged global warming crisis does not exist. We confidently published this statement more than a decade ago.

Also, it appears that increased atmospheric CO2 is a significant benefit to humanity and the environment, resulting in increased botanic activity, better crop yields, and improved water utilization by plants.

However we do not yet know how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural causes, and how much is due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. We do know that the natural seasonal CO2 flux dwarfs the humanmade components, and we also know that at least during the growing season, CO2 emissions seem to be captured quickly close to the source by increased botanic activity. This is an area where more data and discussion could prove beneficial.

Here are some thoughts I have been pondering since about 2008:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/#comment-1041309http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/29/an-observational-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/#comment-996002
[Excerpt]
Some Thoughts Regarding the Evidence of Longer Cycles and Lags:
We know there is a ~9 month lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration after temperature on a ~~4 year cycle of natural global temperature variation.http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
We also know that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years on a much longer time cycle (ice core data).
… there is probably at least one intermediate lag, and quite possibly several, between these two – perhaps associated with the Wolf-Gleissberg Cycle, Hale Polarity Cycle, etc., AND-OR with the PDO, etc.
The lag of CO2 after temperature observed in these longer cycles is probably mostly physical in origin, related to ocean solution and exsolution of CO2, but also includes a long term biological component.
Willis’s analysis deals with the seasonal (annual) cycle, in which the biological component of the CO2 lag is comparatively much greater.
I have the opinion that we are looking at several natural cycles of varying duration in which there are external natural drivers (Sun, Earth orbits, stars), then some randomization associated with large ocean phenomena (PDO, etc.); these drive Earth’s natural temperature cycles at all time scales, and result in a series of related CO2 lags after temperature.
Finally:
Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 – it is more likely the result of the cumulative impact of all these aforementioned natural cycles – for example, the Medieval Warm Period was ~~800 years ago.

I only write to draw attention to your post and to respond to your statement saying

I cannot agree with Nyq at all – his arguments seems to be religiously-based rather than scientific – he says “we KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. This is apparently a specious statement, either false or insignificant. There is NO compelling real-world observational evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming at these concentrations, and there IS compelling evidence that the actual effective “sensitivity of temperature to CO2” is near-zero or even non-existent, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and there has been NO significant global warming for ~10-20 years despite increased atmospheric CO2.

I agree and again state my view on this.

I am convinced that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in some rise in global temperature, but I am also convinced any such temperature rise would be too small for it to be discernible and, therefore, it would only have an abstract existence. I explain this as follows.

Before presenting my argument, I again point out that I remain to be convinced human emissions are or are not the cause – in part or in whole – of the observed recent CO2 rise. However, the cause of a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not relevant to the effect on global temperature of that rise.

My view is simple and can be summarised as follows.The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..

In other words,the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.

Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.

Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence which has observable effects.

‘“The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.”
Not on this planet’

No, not on your planet, where a rate of change is somehow the same as absolute concentration. Clearly, you are not following the conversation. The rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly are affinely similar. Let us have no more denial of this fact.

Nick Stokes says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:27 am

Again, words have a meaning. If you are not following the conversation, how can you hope to make any meaningful contribution to it?

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:32 am

“The fit is as good as yours for the high frequency changes based on yearly averages over the period 1960-current.”

I see I was hasty in looking at your two inputs. Nyq tried to match ppmv with degC. How stupid is that?

Nick, your link is idiotic. Of course you can get a better fit of the slightly quadratic curve with a least squares fit. That’s because… wait for it… it’s a zarking LEAST SQUARES FIT, by definition the best quadratic fit there is!!!

But, it has no physical explanation accompanying it, and the derivative of it WILL NOT MATCH the variations AT ALL.

Yeah, integration of GISS is not perfect. Real world data is not perfect. As I mentioned previously, I would get a much better fit integrating the SH temperatures or the satellite temperatures. Why? Because they fit the derivative better, and integrating it produces a unique solution. The closer the derivative, the closer the integration.

Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2

Allan, as I have already said to dbstealey, there are indeed different lags (and different processes) at work for different time frames. And also different ratio’s of CO2 changes vs. temperature changes.

1. For the seasons:
Lag ~3 months; 5 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in countercurrent; vegetation dominant.2. For a few (1-3) years:
Lag 6-9 months; 4-5 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in parralel; vegetation dominant.3. For the past 50+ years
Lag unknown as there is no known temperature effect startpoint; >100 ppmv/K; vegetation about neutral over the whole period, small source until ~1990, increasing sink since then, except during El Niño’s. Oceans are an increasing sink over the whole period. Oceans dominant? But proven more sink that source while levels increase in the atmosphere…4. For centuries to multimillennia:
Lag ranging from ~50 years (MWP-LIA) to ~800 years (deglaciation) to several thousands (glaciation); ~8 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in countercurrent; oceans dominant.

What doesn’t fit in the row of proven natural variability? The third one, with an alleged enormous effect from a small, sustained change in temperature, by coincidence (?) following the accumulation of human emissions at an extremely constant rate, except for the 1st and 2nd natural variability.
A “temperature effect” that again disappears after a century or so (according to the past in ice cores). Not seen in any CO2 proxy in the world or any ice core over the past at least 800 kyrs…
Thus how can the recent increase be a result of a combination of natural cycles?

Wood for Trees doesn’t have the emissions in their database, thus I have compared the 12 month averages of temperature and CO2 increase. The short term variability gives a better match than yours. The 5+ decades change gives a better match than yours… Who denies what?

People appear to have some pretty weird ideas about what I have done and what the goal is here.

The goal is NOT to produce the best fit to the data. The goal is to find similarities which indicate where the main action is which produces the CO2 concentration we observe in our atmosphere.

I did not optimize the integration fit of the GISS temperature here. I pulled the coefficients out of a hat based on a rough inspection. It is not important how small the delta is between the observations, it is only important that it is small. I could have gotten a better fit by optimizing the slope and offset parameters. I could have gotten a better fit with different temperature data sets. It would be wasted effort, because it is beside the point.

What we are dealing with here is an approximate relationship, using bulk variables. The real-world system is distributed across the entire globe. What happens in one location is not going to be the same as what is happening elsewhere. The total outcome is going to be the sum total of everything happening across the globe. The best we can hope to do with bulk temperature measures and bulk CO2 measures is an approximation.

What is important here is that it the result of the approximation clearly indicates that what we are dealing with is mostly a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. This relationship, whatever it is in its full glory, accounts for ALL of the observed behavior, both in the long term and the short. There is no need to take account of human inputs to explain the behavior to a high degree of fidelity. To include human inputs, we would have to discount the temperature related process and, in doing so, we would deviate from the description of the short term behavior. And, that dictates that the human inputs CANNOT be having a significant impact. There is no significant room for them if we are to match the short term behavior.

It is NOT important, as Ferdinand seems to believe, that we match all the data, including from questionable proxies, back to the dawn of time. The relationship has held steady for the entire interval from 1958 onward in which we have had incontrovertibly good measures of atmospheric CO2. It is umimportant whether the relationship matches the proxy measurements for two reasons:

1) The relationship is not guaranteed, indeed should not be expected, to be fixed in time, and a different relationship could have held in earlier times.

2) Who cares? The major increase in CO2 has been over that 55 year interval, and the relationship has undeniably held during that time. It does not allow for significant human forcing during that interval.

This is really not at all even questionable to a fair minded, unbiased and rational appraisal. The only reason to hold out against the evidence is denial. Humans simply have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

“It is umimportant whether the relationship matches the proxy measurements for two reasons: “

A third reason is of course that, as Salby showed, the proxy measurements are not a direct measure of the CO2 in the atmosphere. But, whether one chooses to believe Salby or not, the question is moot, because of the above two reasons.

I commented: “I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect.”

Nyq Only then asked:

“Which claimed cause and effect?”

You have commented in various ways that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Since that is your position, I’ve been asking for empirical evidence in the form of a chart showing that claimed cause and effect.

I have posted charts from different sources that clearly show this cause and effect: ∆T causes ∆CO2. All I’m asking for is verifiable evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is specifically the cause of the rise in temperature. That data must be quantifiable; assertions are not adequate.

All I have gotten are chart overlays. But they do not show a cause and effect relationship like the charts I posted do. They only show that at times, CO2 and temperature coincidentally moved in the same direction.

Now, it may be that a rise in CO2 does cause a rise in temperature. But if so, it is too small to measure, because despite repeated requests, neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide any such cause and effect measurements. And if something is too small to measure, it can hardly be called science, can it? At most, it is only a scientific conjecture. It is not even a testable hypothesis, because you cannot falsify something that you cannot measure.

The real question is this: is the recent rise in CO2 harmful? If so, then show us the harm. Identify the global damage due directly to the rise in CO2. Otherwise, the CO2=AGW discussion is pointless arguing over nothing.

The crux of the entire debate is the contention that “carbon” is a problem that must be addressed. If that is so, then show us where the problem is, and show us with verifiable measurements. Show us the global damage from a few ppm of a minor trace gas. Identify the harm caused by “carbon”. Otherwise, the argument is akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin.

Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 11:01 am on [Nyq Only says:August 14, 2013 at 2:10 am]
“I see I was hasty in looking at your two inputs. Nyq tried to match ppmv with degC. How stupid is that?”

Not sure what your point is. You stated that ““The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.” and the graph I drew shows the long term trend of the derivative of Mauna Loa interpolated mean with the long term trend HADCRUT4 global mean temperature over the same time period i.e. the long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 with the long term trend in temperature. Exactly what you say “matches perfectly”. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/derivative/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend
They don’t match perfectly – not even close. Best we can say is that they both go up. I suspect given your previous graphs you meant something else but I’m not psychic and I’m afraid it is up o you to work out what relation you wish to talk about and what the significance of that relation might be.

I do want to say, Nick, in case my frustration hides it, that I do have respect for your capabilities in general. You have shown in the past that you clearly have some formal training and reasonable understanding of issues involving signals and systems. If my comments to you appear caustic, it is because I am frustrated by what I see as your dogmatic refusal to think outside the box, and these needling potshots you take when you undoubtedly could reason these clearly evident considerations out for yourself.

Here is the plot for the influence of temperature on the trend. Add to that 53% of the human CO2 emissions/year over the same period (which unfortunately is not possible in WFT) as a first approximation.

The derivative of the temperature stands for the short term reaction of CO2 on temperature changes, while these in reality react over 1-3 years. The longer term reaction of CO2 levels on temperature is ~8 ppmv/K, the ~0.4 K increase in temperature would give an increase of ~3.2 ppmv over a period of 50 years, hardly detectable in the 70 ppmv increase.

“You have commented in various ways that CO2 is the cause of global warming.”

Well I certainly believe that CO2 is a major driver of global warming the main issue I have been discussing in this thread has been whether the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 has an anthropogenic cause.

“I’ve been asking for empirical evidence in the form of a chart showing that claimed cause and effect.”

And that is a nonsensical request. A chart can only show correlation between two variables. How can a chart show cause and effect? Even if the variables match or there is a lag between one and the other you have no way just from a chart of knowing what other underlying causes might be in play (for example a third uncharted variable which is a common cause of the changes in two charted variables). That isn’t some wacky warmist position either but high-school interpreting statistics.

“I have posted charts from different sources that clearly show this cause and effect: ∆T causes ∆CO2.”

The best you can say about your chart is that it shows that the seasonal and year to year wobbles in both temperature and rate of change of CO2 are very similar. That takes us to the stunning conclusion that climactic variables are related – hey wow! it is almost like we are measuring stuff on the same planet! You want to get from that to a strong claim that temperature cannot be affected by carbon dioxide despite the fact that we know from the physical chemistry of carbon dioxide that it certainly can affect temperature.

Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
“No, not on your planet, where a rate of change is somehow the same as absolute concentration. Clearly, you are not following the conversation. The rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly are affinely similar. Let us have no more denial of this fact.”

The graph I drew your comment is relating to is one showing the DERIVATIVE. You do know what a derivative is? No? oops

Allan MacRae says: August 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
“I cannot agree with Nyq at all – his arguments seems to be religiously-based rather than scientific – he says “we KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. This is apparently a specious statement, either false or insignificant.”

Well me and Murry Salby think CO2 is a greenhouse gas – I know the Slayer crowd have some issues with that but I think it should be OK to refer to basic physics and chemistry as stuff that we know without it being regarded as a religious statement. Of course if you think I’ve gone too far and would like to challenge the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (one of the most significant greenhouse gases according to Prof Salby) then you should explain your argument.

Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“You bring nothing to the table in this discussion. Please go away.”

Well not the most gracious admissions of defeat that I’ve ever read but I guess it will do. Regarding your request for me to “go away” I believe that is a request solely within the domain of the managers of this blog rather than yourself.

What is important here is that it the result of the approximation clearly indicates that what we are dealing with is mostly a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. This relationship, whatever it is in its full glory, accounts for ALL of the observed behavior, both in the long term and the short.

Even if we don’t take into account the proxies of earlier times, the alternative fits the data as good as your approach. The temperature changes are responsible for the short (1-3 years) variability of the CO2 rate of change. The temperature increase 1960-current is responsible for a small increase of CO2, in line with Henry’s Law of ocean releases. And human emissions are responsible for the bulk of the increase.

Further, as repeadetly said, your temperature dependent ocean process runs counter the observed 13C/12C ratio change, it should increase the turnover of CO2 in the atmosphere (for which there is no proof) and increase the decline of the bomb spike 14CO2 (no sign of that either). And last but not least, it violates Henry’s Law, as an increase of 3.2 ppmv in the atmosphere would stop any extra release of CO2 from the oceans for the 0.4 K increase in temperature.

Thus if you have two competing theories, both fitting the same CO2 increase in the atmosphere for short and medium term, one which fits all available current accurate observations, the other violating about every observation, which of them is the right one?

Not really. Your comment is simply a copout, because in fact my charts do clearly show cause and effect. Your problem is that you cannot find a chart that shows that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the rise in temperature. CO2 may have some tiny effect, but that effect is too small to measure.

I posted 2 charts that clearly show that ∆T is the cause of the change in CO2. One chart covers a few decades, and the other one covers the past 400,000 years. Everyone else can see that T leads CO2 on those time scales. If you look closely, you will see it too.

A chart can only show correlation between two variables. How can a chart show cause and effect?

The reason you ask is that you mistakenly think,
“A chart can only show correlation between two variables.”
But a chart can also show coherence, and both correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.

Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.

Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct a causal relation between two parameters.

Coherence of two parameters indicates that when one parameter changes then the other parameter changes later.

Coherence can disprove that change of one parameter causes change in the other; i.e. if change in parameter A follows change in parameter B then the change of A cannot be the cause of the change of B (because a cause cannot occur after its effect).

So,
1.
absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relationship
and
2.
when there is a direct causal relationship then coherence indicates which of the two parameters is causal.

Furthermore, coherence in the absence of correlation is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters).

For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school following their summer break.
The coherence is great; i.e. both effects occur each year.
But the effects do not correlate; i.e. the number of returning children is not indicative of the number of falling leaves.
In this example, the time of year is the additional parameter which causes children to return to school and the leaves to fall off trees.

So, in the context of your question, yes, a chart show cause and effect if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters. The coherence between the parameters indicates which is causal.

And, as has been repeatedly explained in this thread, global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration cohere such that changes in the CO2 follow changes in the temperature at all time scales.Thus, if it is assumed there is a direct causal relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration then their coherence indicates the temperature changes cause the CO2 changes.

Unless, of course, you can provide a chart (as requested from you by dbstealey) showing the changes in the temperature following changes in the CO2).

Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 11:01 am
“Of course you can get a better fit of the slightly quadratic curve with a least squares fit. That’s because… wait for it… it’s a zarking LEAST SQUARES FIT, by definition the best quadratic fit there is!!!”

Yes, and I did a least squares regression fit with GISS temp too. It’s the green curve. It’s actually very similar to the quadratic fit. The integration means that GISStemp behaves very like its linear trend apporoximation would. The integration attenuates the residuals.

I think what you did in that integrated test is the right thing to do. Your diffentiated plots emphasise the fluctuations, and show that you have something that correlates with those. But in fact the Keeling curve doesn’t vary much – it’s a steady increase, and it’s the reason for that that people want to know. And matching fluctuations doesn’t help, while if your model could explain the bulk rise, it would help.

But I’ve put two datasets into the same optimising process – a straight line, and GISStemp. They do equally well. The extra information in GISS isn’t helping at all.

Of course there is an out of phase: the CO2 rate of change lags the temperature changes with 6-9 months, which is visible if you take 12 month averages for both CO2 and temperature changes. If you only take a 12 month average for one of them, as you do, there is no out of phase, while in reality there is one…

dbstealey says: August 14, 2013 at 12:25 pm
“I have posted charts from different sources that clearly show this cause and effect: ΔT causes ΔCO2.”

Yes, it does, in those circumstances. It’s not in dispute. CO2 is less soluble in warm water, and charts like yours show about 10 ppmv increase in CO2 for each °C rise in temperature.

But we’ve had a 120 ppmv rise in CO2, and haven’t had a 12°C rise in temperature. Instead, we’ve been digging up carbon and putting CO2 directly in the atmosphere. This plot from the AR3 does the same differencing as BART and your plots, but clearly shows the cause – our emissions.

But, don’t you see? The temperature relationship accounts for the curvature, i.e., the quadratic term. It accounts for that, as well as all the variation. It is hardly a far stretch to say it accounts for the linear term as well, given that the temperature anomaly must have some baseline – the one it already has is arbitrary.

But, here is the nub: you cannot claim that human inputs account for it, because they would also induce curvature which is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm

“If you only take a 12 month average for one of them, as you do, there is no out of phase, while in reality there is one…”

No, the averaging is not why. The WoodForTrees site automatically advances its averages to account for filter lag. You can see this clearly if you choose, e.g., 12 month averages and 24 month averages. They both line up, despite the fact that the lag for a 12 month average is 6 months, and the lag for a 24 month average is 12 months (the time lag is half the length of the average). The averaging is zero phase (because the filtering operation is non-causal, due to the WFT advancement).

The reality is that CO2 lags temperature by 90 degrees, which is consistent with the derivative of CO2 being in phase with the temperature. You can see this in your plot, where you plot the derivatives of both. For instance, focus in the range from 1970 to 1980. There are about 3.5 cycles, corresponding to a frequency of 0.35 cycles/year. The time delay is the phase delay divided by the frequency, all transformed to radians and radians per year. So, that is pi/2/(2*pi*0.35) = 0.71 years, or about 8.6 months.

A 90 degree phase lag tells you that there is an integral relationship between the variables (CO2 is related to the integral of temperature, or temperature is to the derivative of CO2). It really cannot be simpler.

This plot from the AR3 does the same differencing as BART and your plots, but clearly shows the cause – our emissions.

I assume you were joking, but just to be sure I write to ask you to either confirm you were joking or – in the unlikely event that your strange assertion is serious – to please explain what makes you think it “clearly shows the cause” to be “our emissions”.

CO2 changes follow temperature changes on (near) all time scales, Thus the derivative of CO2 changes follows the derivative of temperature changes on (near) all time scales. Thus the out of phase of the derivative matches the out of phase of the the CO2 change in the atmosphere with the temperature change.
The “perfect match” of your plot is simply the result of not taking the derivative of the temperature change.

“This plot from the AR3 does the same differencing as BART and your plots, but clearly shows the cause – our emissions.”

But, what they don’t show is the affinely mapped temperature, which matches the CO2 rate of change. Surely, you can see that there is very little correlation between the bumps and wiggles of the emissions curve and the atmospheric concentration rate of change. This plot may help you see it more plainly. The two have been diverging since 1990, with accelerating divergence coinciding with the temperature lull of the last decade. You may reasonably expect that, if temperatures continue on the same trajectory or start decreasing, and it is a given that fossil fuel combustion is going to continue increasing, the divergence will soon become very pronounced.

“But we’ve had a 120 ppmv rise in CO2, and haven’t had a 12°C rise in temperature.”

There is no reason to expect CO2 distribution within the THC pipeline to be homogeneous. If a quantity, a bubble if you will, of upwelling waters turned out to have a richer CO2 concentration than the surface waters, then as that bubble surfaced over a number of decades, all things being equal, it would start to enrich the CO2 content of the surface waters in general. All things are not equal, however, and those enriched waters would start to outgas to the atmosphere.

This would constitute a pumping action into the atmosphere which would integrate over time. Because the rate at which CO2 outgases, and the waters are then carried back down, is temperature dependent, we end up with a temperature dependent pumping action whose dynamics could be described to first order as

dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

CO2 = atmospheric concentration
k = sensitivity factor (which could vary slowly over time, or perhaps effectively in steps, with the concentration of upwelling waters)
T = a global temperature metric (best fits appear to be either with SH temperatures or satellite temperatures)
Teq = an equilibrium point for T, which also might vary over time

As shown in the plots, the relationship has been remarkably stable with constant parameters since at least 1958 when good measurements of CO2 began to be made.

A more complete toy system which mimics the full system would be

dCO2/dt = (CO2eq – CO2)/tau + H
dCO2eq/dt = k*(T – Teq)

where tau is a time constant, and H is the rate of human inputs. In this system, sinks are represented by the time constant tau. If tau is “short”, then H will be severely attenuated, not effectively integrated, and CO2 will track CO2eq. This is a fairly ordinary and common-type control action.

No it doesn’t. The curvature is multiplied by a number selected by the optimisation, or by your estimate attempting to optimise. Any straight line will give the same result. Curvature comes from the integrated trend. But it could have been the trend of anything. Gistemp is not contributing knowledge there.

That is the whole point! Your model does not match, because you are not acknowledging this relationship.

Because there is no such relationship. On all time scales, a change in CO2 follows a change in T and then it ends: no further increase or decrease of CO2, if the temperature doesn’t change.

That is the case for seasonal changes, where CO2 lags temperature with ~3 months, as good as the derivatives of both do.
That is the case for short term changes, where CO2 lags temperature with 6-9 months, as good as the derivatives do.
That is the case for (very) long term changes, where CO2 lags temperature with 50 to several thousand years as good as the derivatives do.

The time delay is the phase delay divided by the frequency, all transformed to radians and radians per year. So, that is pi/2/(2*pi*0.35) = 0.71 years, or about 8.6 months.

Indeed, that is what is found in the observations: the change in CO2 increase rate lags the temperature increase after e.g. an El NIño with 6-9 months. Thus my “model” reflects reality…

“No, the trend is arbitrarily variable, via your T0 (-0.4). And the curvature is arbitrarily variable by the multiplier of Gi (your 0.2).”

I meant the trend in rate. That trend in rate matches the trend in the rate of measured concentration when you scale by the same scaling factor you use to match the variational components. That trend integrates into the curvature, but that curvature is not arbitrarily variable. It is chosen such that the variational components in temperature and rate of change of CO2 match.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm

“Indeed, that is what is found in the observations: the change in CO2 increase rate lags the temperature increase after e.g. an El NIño with 6-9 months. Thus my “model” reflects reality…”

This is getting really tedious. It lags by 90 degrees. In every frequency component, it lags by 90 degrees. That is because CO2 is proportional to the integrated temperature relative to a particular baseline.

There is no uniform lag in time, only in phase. And, that 90 degree phase shift indicates an integration. You cannot have a constant 90 degree phase shift without having an integration. This can be proven analytically via the Bode phase-gain integral.

Bart,
“That trend integrates into the curvature, but that curvature is not arbitrarily variable.”

It is. You have a relation
C= a3* Σ Gi + Σ a2 + a1
where C is CO2, Gi GISSLO, and a2 can be identified with a3*( your equilibrium temp). You choose a3 (0.2) and choose eq temp (0.4, and thus a2), and match a1. Regression does the same, to minimise LS.

I’m saying that you can get a very similar result, no worse, with
C= b3* Σ t + Σ b2 + b1
where t is time, again choosing the b’s to optimise. The information contained in Gi isn’t helping.

richardscourtney says: August 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“I assume you were joking, but just to be sure I write to ask you to either confirm you were joking”

Of course not. The plot shows gains in air CO2 and the amounts we emitted. Gains rose with emissions, but were a fraction. And you think the presence of CO2 in the air needs special explanation?

I think of this scene. Three people, A,B,C see a leaky bucket with a hose running water into it. A notes that it is half full of water and wonders where it came from. B says, well, from the hose. But C says, no! The bucket is sitting in a puddle, and has holes in it. I can prove water flows through holes. The water must have come from the puddle.

But, it is much worse. When you differentiate b3* Σ t, you only get b3*t. You don’t get all the variational components.

The variation is the ups and downs. In this plot, you see the big blips at, e.g., just past 1970, up and down around 1990, one at just before 2000, and all the other little bumps and burbles in between? Those are important markers. They match with that value of what you are calling a3.

This is what I have been saying: the curvature matches and the variational terms match, with just that one value for a3.

This is why it is such a bad idea to focus on the concentration itself. When you do that, you do indeed see only some low-ordered polynomial behavior, shorn of most of the identifying information, at least to our eyes. That is why you should focus on the rate domain. When you do that, you see that b3* Σ t is completely unsatisfactory.

I think of this one. The three people are standing in a room with a candle burning. Person A notes it has gotten warmer since they first came in. Person B says, “obviously, it is because of the heat coming from the candle.” Person C notes that the candle is quite small, that there has been a noticeable hum which stopped at about the time the temperature seemed to stop rising, and that the light on the thermostat down the hall also went out at about the same time.

Bart,
The difference in the analogies is that with the bucket/hose and CO2/emissions, the obvious cause is amply sufficient to explain the effect. And if you want to dream up an alternative, then, in the bucket case, where did all that water from the hose go?

Lot of arguing here about the relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature. However I notice that you are all using just one dataset, the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa. Admittedly this is the longest sequence, but there are others, and with a wide geographic spread, from Alaska to the South Pole. What happens if you use these datasets? Since there is discussion about time lags, and since the southern hemispheres readings have a lag compared to the northern ones, I think the first step should have been to see how closely the various datasets can be brought into coincidence by a suitable temporal shift, which would establish how large an offset is plausible in the analysis.

Then you need to check your differentiation – I assume it is numerical, but this is notoriously unstable on non-smooth data, which this is. What method is being used, and how has it been checked?

Then you should check the derivatives of the various CO2 datasets against each other – do they match – do they need temporal offsets – are they the same as the CO2 curves themselves.

Only after that should you be trying to match dCO2/dt with temperature. How much of that has been done?

jimmi_the_dalek says: August 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Only after that should you be trying to match dCO2/dt with temperature. How much of that has been done?

Jimmi, I did this in 2008. My simplest analysis examined CO2 data from Barrow Alaska, Mauna Loa, and South Pole, along with Global Average CO2. Many others have done this analysis before me.

From memory:

Mauna Loa is helpful because it is close to the Global Average.

Readings at Barrow show the greatest seasonal amplitude of about 16-18ppm CO2 as I recall. Mauna Loa is intermediate and South Pole is near-zero in seasonal amplitude. This is because the Northern Hemisphere has a much larger landmass than the Southern Hemisphere, and dominates the seasonal CO2 cycle.

From the excellent correlation one can indeed draw the conclusion that ∆T controls ∆CO2 to a certain degree, however one could still argue that a continuous rise of CO2 by 1 ppm/year could be anthropogenic while the charcteristic pattern of ∆CO2 (which correlates with ∆T) rides on top of that (with an average 1 ppm/year to explain the total 2ppm/year increase of CO2) but since the anthropogenic 1ppm increase is constant (presumably) it would not contribute to the correlation pattern. Thus, this serves as a compromise where both Engelbeen and Bart etc. are partially right.

“So, in the context of your question, yes, a chart show cause and effect if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters.”
Well that was a rather long winded way of getting around to the same point I’d made several messages ago. Causality is something that has to be established via multiple lines of evidence. A graph, in itself, does not show causality. Let’s start there and then run through the other aspects of your posts.

“Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct a causal relation between two parameters.”
Even that is a little too strong. Parameter A can have a direct causal relation with parameter B but not show correlation because parameter C also has a direct casual relation with B and the magnitude of change of C means the correlation is not easily observed. For example arsenic poisoning is certainly a cause of death but annual fluctuations in levels of arsenic poisoning aren’t going to show a correlation with annual death rates because motor vehicle accidents and heart disease etc make a more significant impact. Statistically if those other parameters are known we can control for them and identify the correlation. However if those other causes of death somehow weren’t known it would still be fallacious to assume arsenic was not deadly because the correlation couldn’t be demonstrated in annual death rates. Of course with arsenic poisoning we can look at evidence from direct controlled experiments to establish a causal mechanism at a different level of analysis.

“And, as has been repeatedly explained in this thread, global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration cohere such that changes in the CO2 follow changes in the temperature at all time scales.”
The relationship that was under discussion was that changes in THE RATE OF CHANGE of CO2 follow changes in the temperature. Your statement there that changes in CO@ follow changes in temperature is trivially false. Take 1960 to the present: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/normalise

I forget the actual graph presented but it was essentially this relationship: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/normalise
Which shows rate of change of CO2 pretty much following similar wobbles as the temperature anomaly. Now that is a neat graph but it doesn’t show that CO2 concentration follows (or coheres with) temperature over that time scale. It doesn’t even show that the rate of change of CO2 *follows* temperature – indeed it is easy to find periods were a rise or fall of the rate of change of CO2 precedes a related change in the temperature anomaly.

You claim the anthropogenic CO2 emission is responsible for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But you refuse to understand that when considering a complex system it it is NOT sufficient that a possible explanation is “amply sufficient to explain the effect” . There are often “amply sufficient” and plausible but wrong explanations of complex system behaviour.

If this were merely an abstruse scientific issue then your mistake could be ignored: eventually data and understanding will be obtained to resolve the matter. However, others are now using the same mistake as an excuse to attempt imposition of harmful changes to energy and economic policies world-wide.

If the anthropogenic emission is harmful then responses to that harm need to be considered.
But
If the anthropogenic emission is not harmful then harmful responses to that emission need to be avoided.

In this situation it is essential that there be honest research to determine the true cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.Lysenkoist adoption of “amply sufficient” explanations need to be vigorously opposed.
And the ‘sides’ here represented by Ferdinand and Bart are important. Their promotion of their different interpretations of existing data can point others to needed research to obtain other data and to devise other interpretations of data.

The truth will out. External influences provide a need to rapidly ‘out’ the truth. And determination of the truth is prevented by adoption of Lysenkoist “amply sufficient” explanations.

A chart can only show correlation between two variables. How can a chart show cause and effect?

And I replied

The reason you ask is that you mistakenly think,
“A chart can only show correlation between two variables.”
But a chart can also show coherence, and both correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.

I then explained that reply and concluded my explanation saying.

So, in the context of your question, yes, a chart show cause and effect if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters.

To which you have replied

Well that was a rather long winded way of getting around to the same point I’d made several messages ago. Causality is something that has to be established via multiple lines of evidence. A graph, in itself, does not show causality. Let’s start there and then run through the other aspects of your posts.

NO!
You asserted, “A chart can only show correlation between two variables”. I explained YOUR ASSERTION IS PLAIN WRONG. And you now claim you said something else!

Nick, there is much else wrong with your reply, too. But the important issue is that if – as you claim – there is a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature then the coherence demonstrates that the temperature is causal. You were asked to provide a chart which showed the opposite coherence. And you are making excuses for your inability to do that.

Also, I refuse to nibble the ‘red herrings’ of your “run through”.
The facts are clear; viz.
You were wrong: a chart can show what you said it cannot.
And you are incapable of providing a chart which is consist with your claims.

Allan,
Yes, but that did not really answer my question. Do the derivatives agree? Where did you publish this? And, since there is now 5 years more data, what has changed since?
___________

Please understand that this work was done five years ago and I ran almost 100 different spreadsheets analyses, so finding the right one took some time.

Yes the derivatives agree although Barrow, with the greatest amplitudes, displays much greater variability, as would be expected.

In summary, the dCO2/dt plots are in-phase and agree.

I also recall examining some other CO2 measurement sites but did not find those spreadsheets.

I did not publish the work. It did not change the conclusions of my January 2008 icecap.us paper and 2008 was a very difficult year. One major injury, two major surgeries, a 2-month preemie baby delivered by emergency C-section, and lost a fortune in the market crash. Other than that it was a good year.

I last updated my work in 2010 and did not see any change to that time. I examined the same analysis back to 1958 using Hadcrut3 and the correlations held, although Hadcrut3 showed a possible warming bias of (as I recall) ~0.07C/decade versus UAH LT.

Thank you Chris. I agree with you (and Richard) that the two realities (humanmade CO2 contributions and the “CO2 lags temperature” evidence) are not mutually exclusive, at least in theory.

It is indeed possible, even probable, that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has both a natural and a humanmade component, since the counter-assumption that there is absolutely NO humanmade component has a small probability of occurrence.

So it logically becomes a question of the magnitude of the natural versus the humanmade components in the observed CO2 increase. Ferdinand, using the mass balance argument, states that emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are double the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Richard states the counter-argument far better than I can repeat here.

The fact remains that the ONLY signal I can detect in the data, that survives ALL the complexities of this huge global-scale equation, is that dCO2/dt correlates with temperature T and CO2 LAGS temperature by about 9 months. The fact that this “dCO2/dt vs T signal” survives all this noise suggest to me that it is significant and DOMINANT – the dominant factor in the huge global CO2 flux equation.

In contrast, the global warming alarmists grudgingly accepted that the dCO2/dt vs T signal exists, but dismissed it as a “feedback effect”. I regard their feedback hypo as a ”Cargo Cult” digression, lacking credibility. It is like saying you can hear the piccolo in the orchestra, but you cannot hear the orchestra. I suggest they ARE hearing the orchestra, but refuse to admit it.

I suppose it is possible that the gradual (but not linear) increase in humanmade CO2 emissions is overlain by the dCO2/dt vs T signal, but it seems unusual that the dCO2/dt vs T signal survives intact.

Between the 13th and 11th centuries BCE, most Greek Bronze Age Palatial centers were destroyed and/or abandoned throughout the Near East and Aegean, says this paper by Brandon L. Drake

A sharp increase in Northern Hemisphere temperatures preceded the wide-spread systems collapse, while a sharp decrease in temperatures occurred during their abandonment. (Neither of which, I am sure – the increase or the decrease – were caused by humans.)

Mediterranean Sea surface temperatures cooled rapidly during the Late Bronze Age, limiting freshwater ﬂux into the atmosphere and thus reducing precipitation over land, says Drake, of the Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico.

This cooling and ensuing aridity could have affected areas that were dependent upon high levels of agricultural productivity. The resulting crop declines would have made higher-density populations unsustainable.

Indeed, studies of data from the Mediterranean indicate that the Early Iron Age was more arid than the preceding Bronze Age. The prolonged arid conditions – a centuries-long megadrought, if you will – lasted until the Roman Warm Period.

Those four centuries – known as the ‘Greek Dark Ages’ – were typiﬁed by low population levels, rural settlements, population migration, and limited long-distance trade.

The Late Bronze Age collapse is associated with the loss of writing systems such as Linear B, and the extinction of Hatti as both a written and spoken language. Writing and literacy do not return to the Aegean until the end of the ‘Greek Dark Ages’ in 8th century BCE with the spread of the Phoenecian alphabet.
…

“…while the charcteristic pattern of ∆CO2 (which correlates with ∆T) rides on top of that…”

Misses the point. ∆CO2 does not correlate with ∆T, but with the integral of ∆T. The integration of the slope in ∆T begets the curvature in the observed CO2. Adding in human emissions increases that curvature beyond the level which is observed. Therefore, significant contribution of human inputs is ruled out.

Allan MacRae says:
August 15, 2013 at 4:51 am

“I agree with you (and Richard) that the two realities (humanmade CO2 contributions and the “CO2 lags temperature” evidence) are not mutually exclusive, at least in theory. “

No! The rate of change of CO2 IS COINCIDENT WITH temperature anomaly. This naturally begets a 90 degree phase lag in absolute CO2 relative to temperature anomaly.

The changes in the rate of change of CO2 follow changes in temperature. That is observed with a lag of 6-9 months. The rate of change of CO2 is coincident with temperature anomaly. That is observed without lag. The question is which one is the real driver.

Any change in temperature will in/decrease the outflux of CO2 from the oceans, which in/decreases the rate of change in the atmosphere. But to give an instantaneous in/decrease in lockstep with the temperature change, one need an enormous change in influx or outflux, which is near impossible to obtain from deep ocean exchanges, which only change with less than 5% for 1 K in temperature change. If the extra CO2 release/absorbance comes from the ocean surface, then it is possible, but limited in time (and quantity).

However, the “CO2 lags temperature” signal survives amidst all the noise of the huge CO2 seasonal flux equation, and this fact suggests to me that it is the dominant factor in this equation.

CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, except for the trend over the past 5 decades, where there is no discernable lead or lag. That is a problem for the attribution of the cause of the increase. Be it that other indications show the right direction…

“CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, except for the trend over the past 5 decades, where there is no discernable lead or lag.”

I agree with a lot of what you write. But your comment here is flatly contradicted by empirical evidence. There is a clear, easily discernable lag of CO2 behind temperature changes over the past 5 decades.

“NO!
You asserted, “A chart can only show correlation between two variables”. I explained YOUR ASSERTION IS PLAIN WRONG. And you now claim you said something else!”

Nah – we were discussing causality and the sentence you quoted was in relation to the issue of causality and correlation on which I had made several statements as part of a conversation. You can take my sentence out of context and, for example, you could claim that it is easily refuted by pointing out a graph can show the price of bananas – but that would be just telling the world something about reading comprehension. What you did in your explanation to me was go a long way around the houses back to a point I’d made several messages earlier. Now fair enough it is hard to follow the threads of discussion on a blog posts with lots of comments but that is just something we have to cope with. Back to the bottom line – to establish causality you need more than a graph showing correlation of two variables or even a lag between the two. As far as I can see you agree. If you think I should have worded what I said better then I shan’t disagree with you.

Bart,
Sorry I didn’t mean to say ∆T but meant T anomaly. Yet, I (with my limited knowledge of the subject) don’t see why that would not allow for the possibility that the changes in ∆CO2 could not be derived from a contribution of a linear anthropogenic portion and a varying (with T) natural portion.

I agree with a lot of what you write. But your comment here is flatly contradicted by empirical evidence. There is a clear, easily discernable lag of CO2 behind temperature changes over the past 5 decades.

The plot shows the lag of CO2 behind short time (1-3 years) temperature variations of 4-5 ppmv/K. But it is impossible to know which leads or lags for the 70+ increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the 0.6 K increase in temperature over the past 50+ years. Which implies an increase of over 100 ppmv/K…

Bart says August 15, 2013 at 9:34 am “No! The rate of change of CO2 IS COINCIDENT WITH temperature anomaly. This naturally begets a 90 degree phase lag in absolute CO2 relative to temperature anomaly.”

Genuine apologies. I didn’t intend to misrepresent what you had claimed.
So you see the derivative of CO2 being coincident with the temperature anomaly from which you infer that CO2 concentration must lag behind temperature. Well I’m sure we are all committed to basic empiricism here – lets do a sanity check on that and compare a graph of CO2 concentration with the temperature anomaly. Normalised and smooth for ease of looking at http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/normalise/mean:6
Um… the rise in temperature in the last quarter of the twentieth century didn’t precede the rise in CO2. CO2 has been a steady upwards climb (ignoring its seasonal wobbles).

Now step back a minute and consider what mainstream climate science would say about CO2. What is inconsistent here?
OK forget CO2 and consider water vapor as a less politically charged greenhouse gas. What is the nature of the causal relationship between water vapor and temperature that we can a. infer directly from what we know about water vapor on planet Earth and b. what we’d be able to see in graphs.

The fact that an integration produces a 90 deg phase delay is really, really, basic. You do not understand so you do not know what to expect to see, but none of your plots are inconsistent with this. If the derivative matches in phase (and, it does, as I have shown repeatedly), then the original quantity lags by 90 deg in phase. It is an equivalence relation – the one means the other, and you are making a spectacle of yourself.

“I…don’t see why that would not allow for the possibility that the changes in ∆CO2 could not be derived from a contribution of a linear anthropogenic portion and a varying (with T) natural portion.”

Because the varying-with-T portion already explains features for which significant influence from human inputs would cause them to deviate from observations.

Look at this plot. What do you see? You see two time series with an offset, a linear trend, and a bunch of up-and-down variation superimposed on them. In order to match those ups-and-downs, I have chosen the scaling factor for temperature to be 0.2, as you can see in the tables at the right of the page.

Now, it happens that when I use that scale factor, I also match the linear trend. When I integrate this relationship, I get a result very close to the actual observations. As I must, because the result of integration is unique, and if I match the derivative, I am going to match the integral.

Now, human emissions also have a pronounced linear trend in their rate of input (top plot here). But, I’ve already accounted for the quadratic term which will emerge in the integration from a linear trend. I have accounted for it with the temperature relationship. The only way I can fit a significant portion of the human inputs in would be to lower that scale factor of 0.2. But, if I do that, I will not longer match the variations, the ups-and-downs, in that original plot, as here.

It necessarily follows that human inputs cannot be a significant driver. The only way around it is to assume that this excellent correlation between temperature and the rate of change of CO2, especially as observed in highest accuracy measurements such as this, are mere happenstance. Personally, I consider the likelihood of such happenstance to be vanishingly small.

Bart says there is no lag, and produces a graph where the peaks lie on top of each other.
dbstealey says there is a lag and produces a graph where the peaks are offset.

How are these contradictory graphs produced. I think you need to sort this out.

What worries me most about time offsets if this graph,http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html
which shows CO2 concentrations from widely separated areas of the world. The graphs all track each other, but with clear offsets going from north to south. These offsets are 2 or 3 years, which means that the conclusions regarding which is the chicken and which is the egg depends upon which CO2 dataset you take. A possible interpretation of the CO2 distribution is that it originates in the northern hemisphere and drifts south, which opposes the idea that the CO2 is outgassing from the southern oceans. Is there another, plausible, explanation?

dbstealey is plotting absolute CO2. I am plotting the rate of change of CO2. dbstealey is correct – there is a lag in absolute CO2. There is no lag in rate of change of CO2, which means there necessarily is a 90 deg phase lag in absolute CO2, which is what dbstealey sees. Sorry for the confusion, but there is no contradiction. Instead, they are mutually supportive.

On your linked graph, I do not see a big difference in measured CO2 levels. The lower level lines are CH4, per the legend.

I know the lower lines are CH4. What I was pointing out is that he difference in the upper lines is about 2 years worth i.e the values in Antarctica are those from Barrow displaced by two years, approximately, which is enough to affect interpretation of what any displacement means.

The only way you can see the difference between the CO2 curve and dCO2/dt that you do, is if there is a strongly periodic component – the 90 deg phase lag that you keep mentioning is only true for periodic functions (derivative of sine is cosine). I have been assuming that you would have removed the seasonal dependence before doing the analysis. Have you?

dbstealey – unlike some people around here I am not fooled by the choice of scale on graphs – I am referring to the difference between north and south.

Well I must say that Doctor Salby sparked a most interesting discussion concerning CO2 and Temperature. Go Doctor. I do hope that the folks persecuting Doc Salby get theirs as it were. Since I rather enjoy his science. He is an articulate speaker and should be given a chance to publish his science for a proper debate. Proper science would flourish if it weren’t for the actions of a bunch of dogma infused folks such as hockey stick Mann and apparently Nyq only screaming their dogma with their eyes closed and ears plugged.
v/r,
Dave Riser

“…which is enough to affect interpretation of what any displacement means.”

Well, it seems almost a constant bias on a yearly average basis, which of course would not manifest in the dCO2/dt – I missed it previously because it is kind of small compared to the seasonal spread, to which I have not paid a lot of attention.

I don’t think I could really say more without looking at the individual data sets, but this harkens back to what I said earlier that these are somewhat crude, bulk measurements, and a truly perfect agreement between them and a simple model should not be expected in general. I am actually amazed that the agreement is as good as it is – practically perfect, as I have suggested. It is that near-perfection which convinces me that this indicates a very strong and fundamental governing dynamic.

“The only way you can see the difference between the CO2 curve and dCO2/dt that you do, is if there is a strongly periodic component…”

Well, any non-trivial, information rich time series, anyway. You can calculate a sort of average delay for any particular interval by picking out the dominant somewhat periodic formation, as I did above.

“I have been assuming that you would have removed the seasonal dependence before doing the analysis.”

That is the purpose of the integer X 12 month averaging which you can see in the WFT plots I have shown.

I was 37 when I co-initiated the move to new Tax terms for the Canadian Oilsands, and 41 when I initiated the move to new Royalty terms, so my average age was 39. These two initiative, along with SAGD in-situ recovery technology, were the key factors that revitalized the moribund Canadian oilsands industry and the Canadian economy, now the strongest in the G8. So I guess it is true that we do our best work before the age of 40.

I am fairly sure this concept was new because of the very hostile reaction it received from BOTH sides of the CAGW debate. All the warmists and most skeptics completely rejected it.

First I was just plain wrong – the dCO2/dt vs T relationship was merely a spurious correlation“.

Then I was grudgingly admitted to be correct, but the resulting ~9 month CO2-after-T lag was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. This remains the counter-argument of the global warming alarmists, apparently the best they’ve got – a faith-based “Cargo Cult” rationalization, imo.

Now we are embroiled in the “mass balance argument” as ably debated by Ferdinand and Richard, and I frankly think this is quite worthwhile. To me, this is the cutting edge of climate science, and it is interesting.

I also infer that some parties, notably Jan Veizer at the University of Ottawa, had gotten almost this far some time ago.

Intellectually, I think the alleged global warming crisis is dead in the water, although politically it sails on, a ghost ship with the Euros and Obama at the helm. Not to forget our own Dalton McGuinty in Ontario – now a “have-not province” collecting transfer payments , our national welfare scheme for failed economies.

The global warming alarmists have squandered more than a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on foolish “alternative energy” schemes that we condemned in writing in 2002. We said then that “the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels” and this is now proven to be true. The economies of the European countries and their fellow-travellers have been hobbled by green energy nonsense, and millions are suffering and thousands are dying each winter from excessively high energy costs.

I am concerned, I hope incorrectly, about imminent global cooling, which we also predicted in a Calgary Herald article in 2002. I really hope to be wrong about this prediction, because global cooling could cause great suffering. Our society has been so obsessed with the non-existent global warming crisis that we are woefully unprepared for any severe global cooling, like the Maunder or Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.

Solar activity has crashed in SC24, and although our friend Leif says not to worry, I continue to do so.

There is no question at all. Suggesting that temperatures respond to the rate of change of CO2 is absurd.

I am not suggesting that, it is the opposite: CO2 rate of change responds to the rate of change of temperature, which is clear for the 1998 El Niño episode

The integral over the period 1960 – 2013 is 0.4 K temperature increase. With the short term response of ~4 ppmv/K that gives an increase of 1.6 ppmv. With the long term response of CO2 to temperature of ~8 ppmv/K, that gives 3.2 ppmv extra. The rest of the 70 ppmv increase over that period is from human emissions…

David Riser says: August 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm
“Proper science would flourish if it weren’t for the actions of a bunch of dogma infused folks such as hockey stick Mann and apparently Nyq only screaming their dogma with their eyes closed and ears plugged.”

Good point – after all I’ve been so blinded by dogma I haven’t even been able to see any of your comments on this post where you offered any scientific arguments at all (rather than name calling).

jimmi_the_dalek says: August 15, 2013 at 2:55 pm
“Bart says there is no lag, and produces a graph where the peaks lie on top of each other.
dbstealey says there is a lag and produces a graph where the peaks are offset.”

dbstealey’s is the change in CO2, Bart’s is the rate of change. Actually dbstealy’s should help Bart identify what it is that he things should lag.

Bart says: August 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm
“The fact that an integration produces a 90 deg phase delay is really, really, basic. You do not understand so you do not know what to expect to see, but none of your plots are inconsistent with this. If the derivative matches in phase (and, it does, as I have shown repeatedly), then the original quantity lags by 90 deg in phase. It is an equivalence relation – the one means the other, and you are making a spectacle of yourself.”

Obviously I should believe your conclusions rather than my lying eyes (apparently blinded by dogma – bad dogma! naughty). Joking aside I am trying to help. Think through what I’ve shown you. You conclude from your graph that “phase lag in absolute CO2 relative to temperature anomaly”. Now that is easy to check because we really can look at absolute CO2 and the temperature anomaly – as I showed you. When you do you don’t see what you claim. Hmmmmmmmm.
So what to do? Has mathematics gone horribly wrong? No. Have you misunderstood what your graph is showing you? Yes – as several people have explained. So the question is not whether I’m blinded by dogma – after all I’m not saying very much – but whether you can debug your reasoning. You seem like a smart person and I’m betting you can.

Bart, Thanks, you convinced me. Now, how do you respond to Engelbeen’s conclusion that in that case we have to assume a CO2 “increase of over 100 ppmv/K”

You need to know some background about our years long discussions…

All that Bart has done is interpretating one nice fit of temperature and CO2 increaase. From that he concludes that a sustained small difference in temperature against a baseline is responsible for both the short term and longer term (over 5 decades) increase in CO2. That is also the claim of Murry Salby.

While that is clearly right for the short term (1-3) years variability, it is impossible for the longer term trend, because that is violating near all observations over the past 50 years. The “match” of the trend is pure coincidence based on an arbitrary baseline.

The ocean surface is a proven sink for CO2: DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) increased over time in ratio with the atmosphere at a rate of ~10% of the increase, due to the buffer factor (Revelle factor).
Thus the only possible real source are the deep oceans.

That also means that the influx (and outflux) of CO2 must be mimicking human emissions at an incredible constant ratio.

From a process view, as the net result of all natural and human flows is a net sink of ~half the human emissions, that means that the near 3 times increase of the sink rate over time and the same increase of human emissions must be balanced by a near threefold increase in turnover of total CO2 inputs and outputs (the behaviour of human and natural CO2 is identical, except for some small influence over different isotopes):
But lots of empirical observations only show a slowdown of the residence time of ~5.3 years, not a near threefold shortening over recent decades, which is consistent with a rather stable turnover in a growing reservoir.

Further, an increase of the turnover from the deep oceans increases the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while human emissions lower the ratio. The observed ratio shows a steady decline, partly diluted by ~40 GtC CO2 circulation from the deep oceans. If the oceans were a huge increasing source/sink over the past 50 years, then the ratio would go up:

Besides other observations, a constant output rate from an increase (or decrease) in temperature is physically impossible, as the extra output from the deep oceans at the upwelling places (and the decrease of input at the downwelling places) gives more CO2 in the atmosphere, but that increase in atmospheric pressure reduces further releases of CO2 from the oceans. An increase of ~16 ppmv in the atmosphere is sufficient to bring the fluxes back to what they were before a temperature increase of 1 K.

However, I agree with Ferdinand that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rise must be an oceanic effect if temperature is – as Bart claims – the causal variable. But this says nothing concerning whether Ferdinand or Bart is right because it does NOT exclude either of their interpretations.

As I said, the rise may result from a change in the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. In that case, the predominant change is probably alteration to the exchange rate of CO2 between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean. Biota in the ocean surface layer will ‘process’ CO2 at rates affected by CO2 concentration, nutrient supply, temperature, and pH. This makes Henry’s Law inapplicable, and dead biota transfer carbon to the deep ocean.

Biota in the ocean surface layer will ‘process’ CO2 at rates affected by CO2 concentration, nutrient supply, temperature, and pH. This makes Henry’s Law inapplicable, and dead biota transfer carbon to the deep ocean.

Compared to land vegetation, CO2 is abundantly present in the oceans, mainly as bicarbonates (which are used for the shells of cocclithophores). That is not the limiting factor in seawater. In general the limited availability of nutritients like iron are the limiting factors.
Further, any increase in temperature will speed up plant growth in the oceans, thus increasing uptake of CO2 and carbon dropout (organic and inorganic) into the deep oceans, while Bart’s theory shows the opposite, thus completely depending on Henry’s Law from an increase in temperature and upwelling…

Ferdinand, on the one hand I have difficulty is accepting coincidance as an explanation for the extraordinary ∆CO2-T anomaly match, on the other hand I have difficulty in accepting that the tiny ∆CO2 signature and its correlation with T anomaly remains preserved in the huge sinks and sources (both terrestrial and oceanic) that control the global CO2 budget.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.“…the still-heretical notion that dCO2/dt changed ~contemporaneously with temperature and therefore CO2 lagged temperature by about 9 months, and thus CO2 could not primarily drive temperature…” makes perfectly good sense.

SST and air temperature are linked as has been shown time and again at WUWT.

Henry’s law shows that as ocean temperature increases the oceans will out gas CO2 or as the temperature decreases oceans will absorb CO2.

….solubility of permanent gases usually decreases with increasing temperature at around the room temperature, the partial pressure a given gas concentration has in liquid must increase. While heating water (saturated with nitrogen) from 25 to 95 °C, the solubility will decrease to about 43% of its initial value. This can be verified when heating water in a pot; small bubbles evolve and rise long before the water reaches boiling temperature. Similarly, carbon dioxide from a carbonated drink escapes much faster when the drink is not cooled because the required partial pressure of CO2 to achieve the same solubility increases in higher temperatures. Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 °K increase in temperature.….

Finally Gerard Roe and Nigel Calder before him also figured out the right parameter to look at was derivatives in relation to the Milankovitch cycles.
As Luboš Motl put it

….Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake that had previously been done. And a similar mistake is being done by many people all the time – scientists as well as laymen; alarmists as well as skeptics. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.

In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?

Nigel Calder knew that this was the right comparison to be made back in 1974….

In chemistry we call this relationship the Rate of Reaction

The rate of a chemical reaction is the change in concentration over the change in time….

As I said Rate of Reaction make perfectly good sense. This type of leap in understanding is why those outside a narrow discipline can see the answer to a problem that has been puzzling the ‘Experts’ who were never trained in anything but their narrow field of expertise. The knowledge, widely known in another field is not only unknown but not even thought of by these ‘Experts.’

It is also why showing all data and your method is so important when publishing.

Even though the process was a bit rough, it was fast, honest and transparent. I suggest that this publishing process is far superior to the pal-reviewed nonsense that has been the standard for Nature and Science in recent decades (especially with regards to papers in climate science by the hokey team).

I think it needs to be remembered that physics is a quantitative subject, not just a qualitative one. The fact that curves can be made to match in shape means that they might be pointing to a relationship, but it may not be the whole effect.
To illustrate the point I shall claim that I am personally responsible for global warming. In the 1980’s I bought a house, got married, had children, moved to a bigger house, and generally increased our energy consumption up until the early 2000’s when the children left to go to university and our energy use fell. So there you are – a correlation – it even has the right units – and it explains ‘the pause’ as well. So what’s wrong? Well that’s obvious – our contribution is too small by at least a factor of a billion to have any effect – you have to consider magnitudes as well as qualitative correlations.
Now I don’t want to knock what Allan and Bart are showing – it is an interesting relationship (though it could be done a bit more rigorously) and it may explain some short term variations, but as Ferdinand Engelbeen points out it cannot account correctly for the magnitude of the CO2 rise – there has to be something else going on in addition, and the obvious thing is mankind’s contribution.

And while I am here, Gail Combs says “Henry’s law shows that as ocean temperature increases the oceans will out gas CO2 or as the temperature decreases oceans will absorb CO2.”

No it doesn’t. Henry’s Law states that the solubility is proportional to the partial pressure. The solubility also depends on temperature, but when the temperature of the oceans has changed by about half a degree, and the partial pressure of CO2 has changed by over 30%, then it is clear which Henry’s Law will predict to dominate.

Now I don’t want to knock what Allan and Bart are showing – it is an interesting relationship (though it could be done a bit more rigorously) and it may explain some short term variations, but as Ferdinand Engelbeen points out it cannot account correctly for the magnitude of the CO2 rise – there has to be something else going on in addition, and the obvious thing is mankind’s contribution.

Yes, but it has to be remembered that “the obvious thing” is often not the right thing.

Richard, there are estimates for the quantitative uptake of CO2 into the biosphere, the ocean surface and the deep oceans. These are based on the oxygen balance, the 13C/12C balance and the 14C spike of the atomic bomb test. While there still are large margins of error, each of them are proven net sinks for CO2, not sources, for all years that there are data. With a few exceptions, all within the margins of error.

Human emissions fit all observations. The accumulation in the atmosphere shows an incredible constant ratio to the total human emissions (while temperature does not). That is quantatively measured:

Of course, there are several theoretical solutions to the same relationship. But these indeed fail one or more observations: a similar increase ratio from the deep oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. The ocean surface has a limited capacity for changes and vegetation is a proven sink. And other possible sources (volcanoes, rock weathering,…) are either too small or too slow…

Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 °K increase in temperature…

Indeed, that means a doubling from 280 to 560 ppmv for 16 K increase in temperature of the whole ocean surface.
For the 0.4 K increase in global ocean temperature increase over the past 50 years, that gives an increase of 7 ppmv in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium. The rest of the 70 ppmv increase is thus not from the oceans, or that would violate Henry’s Law…

Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 16, 2013 at 2:27 am
“All that Bart has done is interpretating one nice fit of temperature and CO2 increaase. From that he concludes that a sustained small difference in temperature against a baseline is responsible for both the short term and longer term (over 5 decades) increase in CO2. That is also the claim of Murry Salby.

While that is clearly right for the short term (1-3) years variability, it is impossible for the longer term trend, because that is violating near all observations over the past 50 years. The “match” of the trend is pure coincidence based on an arbitrary baseline.”

I think you can make a stronger statement than that. If you think about the steps Bart has taken to draw his graph then the if the relationship he has drawn holds it pretty much demonstrates that the temperature anomaly as a parameter CANNOT explain the long term growth in CO2 – i.e. if his graph proves anything it is the opposite of what he is claiming. The issue is basically understanding what his graph is showing regarding CO2 and what important aspect it has effectively removed from consideration.

Interestingly Bart clearly has more than enough maths skills to work out the mistake he has made.

richardscourtney says: August 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm
“Perhaps, but either you lack such skills or your assertion is so unfounded that you are not willing to state his “mistake” which you claim to have found.”

More than one person has already summarized the broad issue with Brad’s graph – I didn’t find it, multiple people have either sketched aspects of it or alluded to it prior to me. I’m happy to take you through things if you like…however I think you can also work it out and you aren’t likely to dismiss your own reasoning as blinded-by-dogma. So I could type lots of stuff which you will dismiss out of hand (lose-lose for both of us) or you can think about it a bit more (where’s the harm in that?). It is fun when you think about it. You don’t need to be too scared – it won’t prove global warming or anything too frightening :)

It seems your superstitious belief (which you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread) has induced you to make an unfounded assertion in support of your dogma that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. Believe whatever you want, but unfounded assertions convince nobody on this blog.

Well thanks for the recap Richard. Luckily my ability to remember stuff goes back at least a few hours so, yes, I do recall our last few posts.
As for my belief being “superstitious” – no it isn’t. My belief is based on the simple fact that when Bart claims the absolute concentration of atmospheric CO2 lags the temperature anomaly that is a claim that is easily checked empirically. You or anybody can look at a graph of both the temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2 and see that it basically doesn’t. No superstition involved. I’m hardly the only one to point that out but even if you think I’m some sort of crazed superstitious-blinded-by-dogma loon you can draw the graph yourself and have a look and see that it really, actually doesn’t do that.
Does that mean Bart’s graph is a fabrication? Nope. It just doesn’t show what he thinks it shows. Much of his reasoning is sound but his hypothesis implies that the growth of CO2 should lag temperature. That is cool because Bart has made a scientific hypothesis open to being empirically falsified – and when we check it turns out to not be true. That is still cool – being wrong in a clever way is a good thing.
Put your skeptical glasses on. By all means dismiss me out of hand as some evil warmist alarmist al goreish monster lurking under a bridge threatening passing goats – once you do the issue won’t go away and you still need to think about Bart’s hypothesis scientifically – Is it actually true? If he is right what other relationships should we see? Do we actually see them? Or has he misstated it slightly but significantly?
What ever my failings may be are independent of whether Bart is correct or not. Just as Prof Salby’s scientific claims are true or false independently of any ethical failings on his part or his employer’s part.

richardscourtney says: August 16, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“I wasted my time by reading your content-free diatribe at August 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm.”
Apparently so – apart from anything else in the process you apparently forgot the meaning of the word “diatribe”.

“It does not state the mysterious mathematical “mistake” which you claim to have found in Bart’s analysis.”

It is largely very elementary calculus and I didn’t claim to have found it. It has already been at least alluded to others before I even started discussing Bart’s graph (or dbstealy’s graph). The only thing mysterious about it the error of interpretation is why Bart hasn’t spotted it yet.

“Incidentally, I am being “skeptical””
Really? So why do you keep ignoring that Bart’s hypothesis fail a basic empirical test – Bart predicts that absolute concentration of CO2 should lag the temperature anomaly. As I pointed out in my “content-free diatribe”* it doesn’t and you can easily go and check that. You don’t need to take my word for it. If you are skeptical you’ll check. Notably you really, really, really don’t want to engage with that aspect of my post. Why not? Oh yeah because I’m a bad person or something. OK I’m a horrible person but less horrible people have already pointed that out.

No I do wonder if you will be able to reply with some substantive content about CO2 and temperature or will I get a reply like the last few. For the second option may I recommend calling me a poopyhead? I haven’t had that one yet and I’d like to start a collection :)

[*wait…if my post had no content how did I manage to make that point? I must be more talented than I realized…]

Assertion is not argument or evidence.
Please explain why the arguments of Allan and/or Bart “can’t be made to fit all observations”.

Already said before, but to repeat the obvious:
– the whole biosphere (land and sea plants, microbes, insects, animals and humans) is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net absorber of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus not the cause of the increase, neither the cause of the 1C/12C decline (to the contrary).
– ocean surfaces are a proven, but limited sink for CO2, as the total amount of inorganic carbon (DIC) increased over time. And its 13C/12C ratio is declining in ratio with the atmosphere, while the reverse net transfer would decrease DIC and increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
– deep ocean exchanges also increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
– the sink rate in whatever sinks increased near a threefold over the past 5 decades. Either that is the result of human emissions, or that is the result of an increased turnover of natural flows from the deep oceans. That is not observed in any decrease of the residence time, to the contrary, and it should lead to an increase of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and the ocean surface, while we see a firm decline.
– other possible sources are either too small or too slow…

Ferdinand, on the one hand I have difficulty is accepting coincidance as an explanation for the extraordinary ∆CO2-T anomaly match, on the other hand I have difficulty in accepting that the tiny ∆CO2 signature and its correlation with T anomaly remains preserved in the huge sinks and sources (both terrestrial and oceanic) that control the global CO2 budget.

The point is that the ∆CO2-Tanom is right for the SH temperature trend but already diverts if you take the global or NH temperature, and diverts even more if you extend the period back in time. Further, that you can make a quite similar graph using ∆CO2-∆T for short term variations and the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere as second parameter, that fits the current period slightly better and the prvious period much better:
and
Thus the good fit of ∆CO2-Tanom is pure coincidence, especially if you think of glacial-interglacial transitions…

I would like to point out that the oceans localized temperature, ie in any given place, changes daily, monthly and yearly by a very wide quantity. I know the average temp change is very small over the averages of the places we measure but those are significantly massaged to create an average. The real surface of the ocean changes by upwards of 15C in some places (gulf of mexico for instance) over the course of a year with changes in hourly and monthly some fraction of that. The global change in temps from place to place is about 40c. This water moves about, with things like the gulf stream that move high temp water into cooler regions. This makes the Ocean a giant CO2 pump it draws it in and expels it. Additionally to make matters interesting the ocean also sequesters carbon through a bunch of biochemical and chemical exchanges. I am not sure if the ocean is a net emitter of CO2 or a sink but it doesn’t matter because locally it can pump out a lot more CO2 than man can generate in that same area over the course of a year. Granted it will draw some back in during the winter months but my point is that its more complex than adding the CO2 from the net warming over the course of a year. So give gail a break and think before you post. Overall I still find the discussion very interesting except for ol Nyq Only, I can’t bear to read his silliness anymore.
v/r,
David Riser

Nyg Only, your woodfortrees plot doesn’t show the derivative of CO2, (we are talking about changes in ∆CO2). So what are you trying to prove? I guess you even don’t know what the issue is that is being discussed here. That’s why people get tired responding to your nonsense.

“Nyg Only, your woodfortrees plot doesn’t show the derivative of CO2″
Correct – Bart’s hypothesis is this that because the derivative of CO2 concentration corresponds so well with the temperature anomaly that THEREFORE the actual growth in CO2 over time must be driven by temperature i.e. must lag behind temperature. Consequently we can check Bart’s hypothesis by actually looking at the relation between absolute CO2 and temperature. Does CO2 follow temperature? In Bart’s own words August 15, 2013 at 9:34 am “The rate of change of CO2 IS COINCIDENT WITH temperature anomaly. This naturally begets a 90 degree phase lag in absolute CO2 relative to temperature anomaly.”
As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum now this is something we can actually inspect. We can look and see if absolute CO2 (rather than derivative) does what Bart thinks it will do. And it doesn’t. Now dbstealy on the other hand DOES produce a graph which shows CO2 with a lag behind temperature. It is very interesting to note what dbstealy has graphed and what it implies.

“So what are you trying to prove? ”
That absolute CO2 does not lag the temperature anomaly. Interestingly enough it doesn’t. Graph it yourself and have a look. Better yet draw a graph that does show a lag and then consider what you had to effectively remove to make the graph.

“I guess you even don’t know what the issue is that is being discussed here.”
Your guess would be incorrect.

“That’s why people get tired responding to your nonsense.”
Well here is your chance to show what a misguided fool I am.

Please explain why the arguments of Allan and/or Bart “can’t be made to fit all observations”.

However, each of your points has been addressed above in this thread. And – as the above discussion shows – your interpretations of those facts can’t be made to fit with the arguments of Allan and Bart, but other interpretations can.

This is very pertinent to your assumption that Hanry’s Law applies: it does not unless you can obtain sea surface temperature data for the entire globe, apply Henry’s Law to each locality, and then integrate the result. And that assumes biological effects in the ocean can be ignored (i.e. an assumption which I do not accept).

Ferdinand, you may be right. So may Bart and/or Allan. It is important that you each promote your case, but – at present – the data does not enable falsification of any of those cases.

The intergral doesn’t show the high frequency changes in CO2, the derivative does. Therefore you are unable to detect any relationship.

Everybody agrees that the high frequency changes of CO2 are caused by the high frequency changes in temperature. No matter if you take the temperature anomaly or the derivative of temperature or a fast (less than 1 year) response function, as Pieter Tans has done in his speech at the festivities of 50 years Mauna Loa data. All three methods give similar results for the short term variability. See:http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from sheet 11 on.

The discussion is about the effect of the slope in the temperature trend: If Bart is right, then near the whole increase of CO2 over the past 50 years is from a small, sustained increase in temperature. The short term changes in CO2 are at exactly the same timing as the changes in temperature anomaly. The integral of the short term CO2 variations then should follow the integral of the temperature anomaly over the same time frame, which it doesn’t. If NOAA and I are right, then ∆CO2 follows ∆T and temperature has a small contribution to the total CO2 increase (the total increase in temperature is ~0.4 K, directly measured or from integration of the fast changes, leading to ~3.2 ppmv CO2 extra in the atmosphere) and the bulk of the increase is from human emissions.

One need to make a distinction between seasonal and continuous effects for CO2 release/uptake of the oceans. The seasonal effect is in the mid-latitudes, while the continuous release is around the tropics and the continuous uptake is near the poles.
While it is quite difficult to obtain real time data (there are only a few stations doing that, most are from frequent ships surveys), there were several attempts to make an inventory of seasonal and yearly fluxes in/out the oceans. These are based on pCO2 measurements of seawater over time. pCO2 combines temperature, salt content, pH, bioactivity and DIC (total carbon) in one driving parameter for CO2 exchanges. Combined with wind speed, the CO2 flux in or out can be calculated. Here are the results:http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml

That the ocean surface is a net sink for CO2 can be deduced from the increase in DIC over time.

Chris Schoneveld says: August 17, 2013 at 2:03 am
“The intergral doesn’t show the high frequency changes in CO2, the derivative does. Therefore you are unable to detect any relationship.”

If you like, however the derivative necessarily removes the approximately* linear trend in CO2 during the twentieth century. So the fundamental crux of the discussion (is that growth natural or anthropogenic) is not included. Essentially put to one side. dbstealey removed it in a different way in this graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Bart finds the differential, dbstealey uses the isolate function on WFT in both cases the trend which is fundamental question is removed and we are left with the short term ‘noise’. If Bart is right then the temperature anomaly fully accounts for what? Well what it fully accounts for is the small variation in the CO2 (smoothed over 12 months) that is *NOT* accounted for by assuming smooth monotonic growth in CO2. i.e. the relationship Bart shows accounts for everything OTHER than the actual upward trend in CO2. Put another way Bart has actually shown the temperature does has not driven CO2 growth – which on reflection is obvious because we can actually see that is not the case.

So yes, we can’t detect the relationship at the scale I keep pointing too because at that scale the relationship basically isn’t there. Why not because in addition to changes in CO2 due to seasonal variation and due to temperature and other climactic parameters we have a growth in CO2 which comes from humans burning fossil fuels. No faith, superstition or dogma is required just observation.

Nyq Only says:
August 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
Chris Schoneveld says: August 17, 2013 at 2:03 am
“The intergral doesn’t show the high frequency changes in CO2, the derivative does. Therefore you are unable to detect any relationship.”

Just to recapitulate in graphs. Reconstructing Barts and dbstealey’s
1. plot Mauna Loa interpolated mean with mean samples at 12 to get this:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12 – that is the growth in CO2 which needs explaining and which Bart’s claim at least is that it is driven by temperature.
2. Bart’s graph: Find the derivative http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/derivative
By the wholly unmysterious magic of calculus this is flatter – the growth shown in 1 primarily determines the vertical offset of this graph.
3. Plot temperature on the same scale. Bart and dbstealy used a scale factor I’ll use normalise cause I’m lazy. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/derivative/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/normalise They sort of match quite nicely. This is Bart’s observation. Let’s go with it. Temperature anomaly is a goodish match for the graph of the differential BUT by aligning them on the same scale we’ve ignored the vertical position of the derivative of CO2 graph (there was no way of not ignoring it – no shenanigans are implied). So the match has no bearing on the growth trend we saw in plot 1. The two things are UNrelated.
4. dbstealy. Back to 3. Change “derivative” to “Isolate” and set samples to 60. Add ‘isolate” to the temperature as well – again at 60. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/isolate:60/normalise Now we have change in CO2 over 5 year against temperature over 5 but now we can see the lag predicted by Bart. But the lag in what? What does “isolate” do? WFT: “Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise'” Again we’ve removed the long term growth we saw in 1. and graphed the ‘noise’. This noise lags behind temperature. What about the growth? Temperature doesn’t explain it – it explains the noise ASIDE from the growth trend.

Both graphs assume dbstealey and Bart are right(ish) then they have both shown temperature anomaly explains the noise in the growth of the CO2. Something else explains the growth we see in graph 1. It basically can’t be temperature.

There are NO “different processes at work”.
The annual rise of CO2 for any year is the residual of the rise and fall of CO2 during that year.

The dynamics of the variation during each year show that the sequestration processes (i.e. the “fast” “seasonal processes”) can easily sequester ALL the annual CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) but they do not. But they do not, and that is why there is an annual rise of CO2 each year.

Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

As I then explained, Arthur Rorsch, Dick Thoenes and I have shown in one of our papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
this question can be answered by assuming something has changed the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. The ‘something’ may be anthropogenic (e.g. the anthropogenic emission) or natural (e.g. the global temperature change).

In this thread there has been no significant debate of the question I posed and no debate of its possible answer suggested by Arthur, Dick and I.

I would welcome address of the question and attempted refutation of our answer to it.

Let us ASSUME for the moment that Ferdinand’s hypo is correct, in that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is predominantly due or entirely due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

This “mass balance argument” is indeed very important for science, but much less important for the politics of global warming and the welfare of humanity and the environment.

Intellectually, global warming alarmism is dead. Despite increases in atmospheric CO2, there has been no significant global warming for 10-20 years. Furthermore, the chief scientific proponents of global warming alarmism have been demonstrated in the Climategate emails to be highly unreliable.

The “sensitivity of climate to increased atmospheric CO2” is insignificant, and may not even exist at all, since it is clear that atmospheric dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. There is a similar but much longer lag of CO2 after temperature in the ice core record. These observation strongly suggest that in nature, temperature drives CO2, not the popularly-held opposite opinion.

So in Ferdinand’s hypo, a humanmade near-linear increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel combustion is overlain by the natural “CO2 lags temperature” phenomenon.

What can we thus conclude for humanity and the environment?
1. The impact of increased fossil fuel use is, to our knowledge, entirely beneficial for humanity and the environment, since atmospheric CO2 is excellent plant food and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at low, and perhaps DANGEROUSLY LOW levels.
2. We should be much more concerned about global cooling than global warming, since increased atmospheric CO2 will not materially alter Earth’s entry into the next Ice Age, which is imminent – if not within the next few years, certainly within the next several centuries.

The above two conclusions are also valid if Ferdinand’s hypo is incorrect.

I strongly suggest that humanity should focus on these conclusions. Winter is approaching.

Richard, if you think that there are no different processes at work, then you don’t take into account what the different reservoir exchanges in nature do. There are obvious lots of different fast, slow and very slow processes at work:

– the ocean surface and part of vegetation react very fast (less than 1 year) on temperature changes. That accounts for seasonal and other fast swings (1-3 years) reactions on temperature. These hardly respond to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
– the deep oceans and more permanent storage in vegetation are much slower processes against temperature and respond more to atmospheric CO2 pressure than to temperature (for the current excess CO2 levels).
– the very long term change in CO2 levels again is temperature dependent, involves changes in growth area, ice cover, deep ocean flows, etc. Very slow processes: 5000-15000 years for 10 K and 80 ppmv change.
– the extreme long term change involves sedimentation processes in the oceans, rock weathering, etc…

Thus your question has little relevance for the reason why the current increase is man-made or not. The fast, temperature related processes are hardly involved in the current medium-term (decades) change in CO2…

Allan, you know that I do agree with you on the impact of the increase of CO2 on temperature…

But I fear that the continuous discussion about the origin of the increase by skeptics diverts from the far more important discussion about the impact of the increase.

In my opinion and of most “warmists” (ranging from luke-warm to extreme) the origin is clear and discussing that is as bad for the credibility of the skeptics as discussing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas… Except if you have clear evidence for an alternative explanation that doesn’t violate one or more observations…

1.
the short-term sequestration is limited by the maximum exchange rate of CO2 between air and ocean
but
2.
the long-term sequestration is limited by the maximum transfer rate of CO2 between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean.

But so what?

The issue isWhy do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

I yet again ask you to recognise that this question refers to the short-term sequestration processes in each year. There are NO long-term sequestration processes involved in this question.

And if the short-term sequestration processes in each year did absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year then there would be no rise in any year. Hence, there would be no long-term rise.

As I said, our explanation of this paradox is a change to equilbrium state of the carbon cycle. In other words, the equilibriation between air and sea surface CO2 concentrations has changed and this causes the short-term sequestration processes to not absorb all the emissions. But the total equilibrium of the system has not yet been achieved because the equilibrium between sea surface layer and deep oceans has also changed and the rate of transfer of CO2 to the deep ocean is very slow.

Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

Simple answer: because they can’t. The ocean surface has a limited capacity for CO2 uptake: 10% of the change in the atmosphere. That is the Revelle (buffer) factor. And the temperature variability has a limited impact on CO2 intake/outgassing of the ocean surface: 16 ppmv/K, where vegetation goes the other way out, leading to a global average change of 5 ppmv/K.

Ferdinand,
I KNOW THE PROCESSES CAN’T SEQUESTER ALL THE CO2 EMISSIONS, BECAUSE THEY DON’T.
But
THE DYNAMICS OF THE SEQUESTRATION PROCESSES SHOW THEY CAN SEQUESTER ALL THE CO2 EMISSIONS,

That is the paradox.

Listing things you say can’t sequester all the emissions avoids the question.

I will try to spell it out.

Short-term processes

1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).

2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.

3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.

4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.

In each year the increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.

So, the dynamics indicate that the natural sequestration is easily capable of sequestering all emissions – both natural and anthropogenic – but it does not. Why does it not?

Ferdinand, listing what you think to be the limits of various sequestration processes ignores the fact that the dynamics of the system indicate the sequestration processes can sequester much more than all the emission in each year.

The data from Mauna Loa, Alert, etc. may all be wrong. But if the data is correct then it indicates the observed dynamics show the sequestration processes can do what they do not. And that is the paradox which you are failing to address.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 17, 2013 at 8:22 am
“In my opinion and of most “warmists” (ranging from luke-warm to extreme) the origin is clear and discussing that is as bad for the credibility of the skeptics as discussing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas…”

Allan says:

But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have absolutely NO SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIVE RECORD.

And I submit that one’s predictive record is a primary indicator of scientific competence.

The warmists’ only successful record is that of scientific dishonesty and fraud.

Let me (deliberfately) distract you for a moment as I ask if may not be true that “each of you” is correct in your “details” of the analysis of CO2 absorbtion, storage, and use, and release over time IN THE SPECIFIC DETAILS of consumption and release, but “each of you” is at the same time “failing” overall because you are trying to assume that the planet reacts to the same impulse at the same time.

Instead, break your analysis up by latitude bands and seasons.

There is CO2 monthly data available for
Antarctica => Very cold, no photosynthesis on land south of 56 latitude, irregular amounts in the ocean between 45 south and 60 south. Virtually none between 60 south and the pole. Right?

Mid-south latitudes: south 30 latitude through south 45 latitude. DOn’t know of CO2 collection stattions. Almost all the area is productive “ocean” area plus limited land: part of South America, Africa, and Australia are about it. CO2 “phase” is out-of-step with northern hemisphere (on land!) but not too much change in temperature really compared to the “mirror latitude” band in the northern hemisphere. Doesn’t this, coupled with the limited-but-present CO2 exchange between northern hemispphere->tropic latitude-> southern latitudes, mean that you’d expect a phase-and macnitude limiit on ANY “impulse change” to CO2 levels?

“Classic northern hemisphere temperate zone”. This is the ONLY area of the global where your generalizations and your time scales “fit” your arguments – both pro and con. But because this is just one area of the global, i suggest politely but firmly that your attempts to “brush” these arguments from one region to a entire global single “climate-and-CO2-response zone” are what is fouling up your arguments: good valid arguments for one place for one time of year are getting trumped by equally valid findings from another place at the same time of year, but phase-shited. Except the second place is dominated by a lack of ocean area, or land area, that is too large/too small in the first area.

It is much like the apologists for the continuing Antarctic sea ice increase. They use arithamtic to “prove” that more Arctic sea ice is lost compared to what is gained by Antarctic sea ice => Therefore only the Arctic loss is a problem. Or they use “percent lost” up north in the Arctic ( “I my God! 30% of the arctic sea ice is lost, but only 5% of the antarctic sea is gained!” without realizing that losing 1 million km from 3 million is a bunch, but that loss has to be compared to gaining 1 million ON TOP OF the already 19 million around the south pole that is itself around the existing 14 million on the antarctic continent.

Result?

We lose 1 million km of sea ice at 85 north latitude, at a time of year when there is almost no sunshine at 85 north latitude. We gain 1 million km of sea ice at 60 south latitude. Where that sunlight IS reflected back into space.

To repeat my beginning statement: Assume Hawaii’s CO2 month-to-month variations are ONLY valid for that latitude band in the north hemisphere, but that they accurately show a mass balance change for that band. What are the resulting CO2 mass balances for the rest of the latitude bands, and WHEN do those mass balances (over land and over ocean) change?

The main difference between latitude bands, altitude bands and the hemispheres is a matter of mixing speed. For altitude, that gives in the NH:
The largest changes are from the seasonal growth and decay of vegetation, which is dominant in the NH.
Besides that, there is North-South gradient: the main increase of CO2 is in the NH:
The South Pole lags Mauna Loa with 1-2 years. The lag is longer for passing the equator, as the ITCZ allows only an exchange of 10% per year in air mass between the hemispheres.

In summary, while the exchanges over the seasons are huge, the net result is quite moderate, partly because the exchanges between atmosphere and oceans and between atmosphere and vegetation go in countercurrent with temperature. And the differences between different latitude bands are quite small within one hemisphere.

Firstly, I do not agree with the ‘mass balance argument’. And this the essential disagreement which Ferdinand and I have been arguing for several years. In my view there cannot be a valid mass balance because nobody knows the carbon exchange between ocean surface layer and deep ocean, but almost all the carbon flowing in the carbon cycle is in the deep ocean. Ferdinand defends the ‘mass balance argument’ as vigorously as I dispute it.

This second point is pertinent because different places have different geography (e.g. ocean cover, local biota, etc.) and, therefore, the question seems to be independent of location. Also, the daily sequestration rates are often higher than the annual sequestration rates at each locality, and this adds to the paradox presented by my question. Indeed, these large and rapid variations in local atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a major reason why some people (e.g. Ferdinand) reject the data collated by Beck.

Please note that I stand ‘in the middle’ in this debate. And I feel sure that if one ‘side’ were able to provide a cogent answer to the question then I would probably move to that side.

Again, thankyou for your post. Your point did need to be made again at this stage, and I thank you for making it.

The dynamics of the sequestration processes show they can sequester all the CO2 emissions

Richard, they can’t, because they are limited in capacity. No matter how fast these processes are (90 GtC in and out partly over the seasons and partly continuous for the oceans), if the ocean surface is in equilibrium at the temperature of that moment with the atmospheric CO2 pressure, then no further uptake will take place. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere only has a limited response (10%) in the oceans surface. 90% remains in the atmosphere or other reservoirs.

The same for vegetation: the rapid growth of leaves stops when they are formed and no further uptake for leaf formation will take place. Other processes like stem, root and fruit formation are slower, but still are limited in capacity. The full seasonal cycle in the biosphere is somewhere between 60 and 120 GtC in and out over the seasons. The year by year variability in that cycle is around +/- 1.5 GtC, mainly temperature dependent (based on dO2 and d13C data). The average increase of vegetation after a full seasonal cycle is ~1 GtC/yr (which is a much slower process than the seasonal cycle and mainly pressure dependent), while humans currently emit ~9 GtC/yr.

The total uptake from the fastest processes in average is ~1.5 GtC/year. Thus the remaining ~7.5 GtC/year needs slower processes to get reduced…

But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have NO SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIVE RECORD.

Allan, the question of the predictive record (in fact the sensitivity of temperature for the increase in CO2) is totally independent of the question of the origin of the increase. The knowledge of the causes of the CO2 increase are spread over a broader group of persons, including a lot of skeptics, like Willis Eschenbach, Lindzen and others. The competence of the climate model makers has nothing to do with that.

What you are showing is not cause and effect. It is a simple overlay. I keep trying to explain that ∆T causes ∆CO2, but I keep getting linked to charts like that, which only show coincidental correlation. They don’t show cause and effect. The charts I posted do show cause and effect, and there is no “pretend” about it.

To be clear: I think human activity has added some CO2 to the atmosphere. How much is debatable. But that is not the relevant point.

The question is: does the added CO2 cause rising global temperatures? I have shown repeatedly that ∆T causes ∆CO2, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. The cause and effect is clear, and the charts verifying that cause and effect are based on ample empirical evidence. If we can’t agree on that point, there is no reason to continue the debate.

But if you can accept that point, then the question becomes: has the rise in CO2 caused any global harm, or damage? If so, you must quantify the damage, and show conclusively that it results directly from human CO2 emissions. But so far, no one has been able to show that.

There is no measurable scientific evidence proving:

a) that human CO2 emissions have caused any global harm. Thus, they can be considered harmless. And

b) that human CO2 emissions are the cause of any measurable rise in global temperatures.

If something cannot be measured, it stops at the conjecture step of the Scientific Method. It is an opinion, with no more weight than a conjecture that CO2 causes no global warming. If it cannot be measured, it is not testable science, is it? It is speculation.

[I happen to think that at current levels, a rise in CO2 will cause some slight warming. But that warming is minuscule compared with other forcings. It is too small to even measure, therefore it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.]

Almost all the warming from CO2 has already taken place, during the first 20 ppm rise in that trace gas. At current concentrations, any small warming effect from additional CO2 is simply too small to measure.

The scientific skeptics’ hypothesis is: At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More than 31,000 skeptical scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences, have already agreed in writing with that position.

Your job is to falsify that hypothesis. I don’t care if you do, because if you did it would advance our knowledge, and that is what science is all about. But up to now no one has been able to provide testable, empirical evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause any global harm or damage. And there is ample evidence that airborne CO2 causes increased agricultural yields.

Conclusion: the “carbon” scare has been sufficiently deconstructed. It is a false alarm. More CO2 is a net benefit. And since the climate always fluctuates, our preference should be for a warmer planet over a colder planet.

If there is a flaw in my reasoning, by all means, please point it out.

The big problem is the entire basis for Englebeen and the warmists claims about CO2 is that it is “Well mixed in the atmosphere” Without that assumption Callendar cannot toss out all the historic CO2 analysis he did not like. The ice core CO2 analysis from before 1982, showing concentrations up to 2900 ppm, cannot be tossed on the garbage heap and Mauna Loa’s rejection step purging outliers that don’t “Fit” their curve is shown to be pure BAD SCIENCE.

Well these satellite images shows the “Well mixed in the atmosphere” conjecture is bogus:

Darn I was hoping for “poopyhead” and instead got “ignorant and boorish”. Also you posted the same link twice. You didn’t address any of the content of my post and instead refer me to a post that you didn’t address to me and demand that I answer your ‘question’. How about YOU post something of substance in regard to what I have actually written.

Once again all you’ve provided is clumsy name calling. We can debate substance or you can call me names. I’m posting substance.

This is a conversation between adults and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack sufficient maturity to contribute except to be disruptive.

In this thread you have lied, misrepresented and insulted all in support of your ridiculous dogma. Take your childish beliefs back to your playpen.

When you have a proper reply to either the question posed to you by dbstealey or the question I have posed to all then – and only then – will I be bothered to read more of your childish twaddle which is wasting space on the thread.

dbstealey says: August 17, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“What you are showing is not cause and effect.”
Well as what I am showing is a demonstration that the cause and effect you and Bart is claiming ISN’T THERE it would be odd for me to say the graph DOES show cause and effect.

“The question is: does the added CO2 cause rising global temperatures? I have shown repeatedly that ∆T causes ∆CO2, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia.”

And mainstream climate science and your Gavin Schmidt’s and Michael Mann’s et al would agree with you that an increase in temperature certainly can result in an increase in CO2. That is a known thing. Do any of your graphs show that CO2 *CANNOT* cause a rise in temperature. No. Not a single one of them does that. Do any of your graphs show that the general staedy growth of CO2 over at least the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond was caused by temperature? No – your graphs do *NOT* show that. Indeed to get the relationship you have shown (which you say is causal and which I’ll except for the sake of argument) you first have to remove the approximately linear growth trend.

A best you’ve shown temperature causes some of the wobbles – the stuff OTHER than actual overall growth trend. Which effectively (not utterly or 100% completely but pretty much) rules out temperature as a driver of CO2 growth. Which, as I’ve pointed out too many times now, is hardly a surprise because when we look at straight CO2 and the temperature anomaly we don’t see a neat relation.

“The cause and effect is clear, and the charts verifying that cause and effect are based on ample empirical evidence. If we can’t agree on that point, there is no reason to continue the debate.”

I can agree that you’ve shown a notable relationship between temperature and SOME changes in CO2. I can *SEE* that you have definitely not shown any relation between temperature and the overall growth in CO2. Indeed you’ve effectively demonstrated that it probably isn’t caused by temperature. Which is interesting.

“But if you can accept that point…”
Well we could go from here to discuss all the aspects of both global warming science and possible policy response to it and to what scale they should be at etc but I think that may be a tad too much to do in one hit. Lets stick to the issue at hand. Has the late twentieth century growth in CO2 been caused by temperature? The answer can be “no” without anybody having to become a devotee of Al Gore or whatever.

The problem is that you claim an increase in the global temperature and an increase in CO2. Now the link seems to be broken you need secondary effects in the deep ocean to make up for your model failure. You claim that man made CO2 will warm the planet yet here we are 16 years down the road and no unnatural changes your vigorous mathematical management could expose.

Even the total inability of the warmists to predict Arctic ice changes should be a big alarm regardless of the sign. The models synthesise all that is currently known about the climate and they are all wrong. Give it up and admit that you have no clue as to what will happen to our climate. Energy makes us healthy, wealthy and wise why do you want to control and ration that energy?

I don’t believe the greens have the best interests of ordinary people at heart when they protest against more, cheaper and more reliable power. Why is energy being rationed?

Darn typo: Last post says ” best you’ve shown temperature causes some of the wobbles – the stuff OTHER than actual overall growth trend. Which effectively (not utterly or 100% completely but pretty much) rules out temperature as a driver of CO2 growth. ” is meant to say ” best you’ve shown temperature causes some of the wobbles – the stuff OTHER than actual overall growth trend. Which effectively (not utterly or 100% completely but pretty much) rules out temperature as a driver of the twentieth century CO2 growth. ” – otherwise it read as if I’m saying that temperature can cause a growth of CO2 in general and can’t cause it in general.

The dynamics of the sequestration processes show they can sequester all the CO2 emissions

with

Richard, they can’t, because they are limited in capacity.

I did explain in detail why the fast processes are limited in capacity, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. But if a process is saturated, no matter how fast it was reacting, no more CO2 can be sequestered.

A more complete answer might be: the dynamics of the sequestration processes over the seasons and over short term (1-3 years) show that they can sequester a lot of CO2 in short time, but also that they have a limited capacity which prevents sequestering more CO2 than these limits.

If your lab measures hundred of samples around a value of 200 for any variable and there is one sample that shows a measurement of 2000 in a clearly contaminated sample, you too probably will throw that result out as an “outlier”.

And measuring a variability of +/- 2% of full scale for CO2, where about 20% is removed and added over the seasons, I call that “very well mixed”. That variability has no measurable effect on any temperature effect. alleged or not…

A more complete answer might be: the dynamics of the sequestration processes over the seasons and over short term (1-3 years) show that they can sequester a lot of CO2 in short time, but also that they have a limited capacity which prevents sequestering more CO2 than these limits.

No, that is not so.

Yes, they can “sequester a lot of CO2 in short time”.
But, no, they do not “have a limited capacity which prevents sequestering more CO2 than these limits”.

If the sequestration were saturating the sinks then the rate of sequestration would decline as saturation was neared. But that is not what happens.

This behaviour is consistent with a switch between two conditions; in one condition sequestration dominates and in the other emission dominates. It is NOT consistent with the sinks reducing their sequestration as they saturate.

Simply, the indication is that the sinks do NOT saturate. And that is why the paradox exists.

richardscourtney says: August 17, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“The science is not going to be supplanted by your dogma merely because you lie, misrepresent and insult.”
Seriously? You are just repeating the same insults and once again you stuff up the link.

“I want to discuss the science”
So why do you keep posting these repetitive messages to me that contain nothing but insults? I don’t get it. If you don’t want to read my messages then don’t read them. I’m not forcing you.
If you want to ask me a serious question then ask it and I’ll give you a serious answer.
Weird stuff about ‘dogma’ and ‘lies’ – what’s the point? Do you think I’ll go away if you are mean to me or something?

[If there is a moderator around here: I think Richard has made his point that he doesn’t like me and he is entitled to do so – but now he is just repeating the same insults and I think these repetitive posts are heading away from fair (if juvenile) comment and into harassment]

“…what I am showing is a demonstration that the cause and effect you and Bart is claiming ISN’T THERE…”

Of course it is there. It is right in front of your nose, and you are the only one who can’t seem to see it. Yours is a typical alarmist response when you claim: “Do any of your graphs show that CO2 *CANNOT* cause a rise in temperature”. Real science doesn’t work that way. I’ll explain:

You are demanding that a skeptic must prove a negative: that a non-existent effect [or an effect that is simply too small to measure] “cannot” be shown in a chart. Well, no kidding. I am not arguing what *cannot* be shown, I am showing you a clear example of the cause and effect relationship between changes in T, and subsequent changes in CO2. How much empirical [real world] evidence do you need?? Even Ferdinand Engelbeen agrees [although his position is that there are different processes at work].

If you had looked at the graphs I posted, you would see that after T rose, CO2 followed. Time after time after time. Then when T declined, CO2 subsequently followed. Time after time after time. This has happened over and over, for hundreds of thousands of years.

That pattern is crystal clear, and it has been repeated on time scales from months, out to hundreds of millennia. Yet you typically refuse to accept that incontrovertible fact. The reason you refuse to accept reality is because if you did, your whole catastrophic AGW argument would come crashing down. But the fact is: T affects CO2 levels, and everyone can see it in the charts I posted.

And:

“Do any of your graphs show that the general staedy growth of CO2 over at least the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond was caused by temperature? No – your graphs do *NOT* show that.”

Well, as a matter of fact, they do show that. Explicitly: CO2 follows T. As I clearly stated, human CO2 emissions add to the total. But the percentage is debatable. Your outlandish position is that temperature has no effect.

Oceans outgas CO2 as they warm, just like a warming Coke outgases CO2. Oceans cover more than 70% of the planet. But your religious belief system will not permit you to admit that global warming is the source of more CO2 in the air. So you tangle yourself up like a pretzel trying to rationalize around what the rest of us see happens naturally.

Next, you say:

“I can *SEE* that you have definitely not shown any relation between temperature and the overall growth in CO2.” You can’t see that because you are blind to the relationship. I have posted plenty of charts showing exactly that: there is an empirical relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. But you can’t accept that fact, because if you do, there goes your argument.

You then ask: “Has the late twentieth century growth in CO2 been caused by temperature?”

Once again, at least part of it is caused by temperature. But you cannot admit that, because your argument crashes and burns if you do. So you say:

“The answer can be ‘no’ without anybody having to become a devotee of Al Gore or whatever.”

The answer is not “No.” Get a grip on reality.

Finally, I note that you avoid any mention of the testable, easily falsifiable scientific skeptics’ hypothesis:

At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

I don’t think you are capable of falsifying that hypothesis. No one else has been able to, and based on your illogical comments, you can’t either.

dbstealy, your graphs show that on short time (1-3) years temperature changes leads CO2 changes. Nobody disputes that. And few dispute that over the long term CO2 levels follow the temperature level (as seen in ice cores).

Where the dispute is, is that the total increase of 70 ppmv over the past 50 years is caused by the small increase in temperature. Your graph doesn’t show that, because the net increase of its integral is very small. That is what Nyq Only showed: there is no connection between the increase in temperature and the increase of CO2 over the past 50 years, no matter that the short term and long term graphs show such a connection. Thus the current increase is probably NOT caused by temperature.

If the CO2 increase causes an increase in temperature and will have catastrophic or not consequences is NOT relevant in this discussion. Like you, I think that more CO2 is far more beneficial for plant growth and humanity (including a small increase in temperature) than harmfull. But please, don’t mix that into the discussion…

Nyq Only says: August 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm
[Reply: At what point would you invoke censorship? — mod.]

Fair point – I don’t want to tell you your job. I think given he has now posted several messages to me that contain nothing but insults. There is no content other than he thinks I’m a liar of some kind. As his position regarding me has been published and can be read by all it would not be censorship to ask him not to clog up this discussion with what are basically clones of the same message. After a point is just harassment. He has said his piece and even said he wasn’t going to engage with my posts anymore and yet he is still carrying on.

I just want to have an intelligent chat about temperature and CO2. I’ll just ignore the trolling from now on.

“Of course it is there. It is right in front of your nose, and you are the only one who can’t seem to see it.”
As I’ve explained I can see the cause and effect you are showing on, for want of a better term, the relatively short term noise in CO2. As I have demonstrated that cause and effect (which for the sake of argument I’ll accept) does not translate to the long term growth trend in CO2. Indeed in different ways both you and Bart takes steps that essentially eliminate that long term growth from your analysis.
Consequently whatever cause and effect you have shown is not something you have shown for the late twentieth century growth in CO2.

“You are demanding that a skeptic must prove a negative:”
No, I think you may have misunderstood my point. A skeptic can reasonably say “CO2 has not been shown to have a causal influence on the temperature anomaly” without proving that CO2 cannot possibly do so. You are making in effect a more positive assertion that because you have found several causal relations between temperature and CO2 (i.e. a rise in temperature causing a rise in CO2) that therefore CO2 itself cannot cause a rise in temperature and that a rise in CO2 must come temperature. My skeptical response to that is that you simply haven’t shown that to be the case.

“If you had looked at the graphs I posted, you would see that after T rose, CO2 followed. ”
I not only looked at them I have replicated some of them and explained how they are constructed and what the relationship is that they have shown.

“Time after time after time. Then when T declined, CO2 subsequently followed. Time after time after time. This has happened over and over, for hundreds of thousands of years.”

Yup. No doubt about it temperature rises can cause an increase in CO2. Agree with you there 100%. Is there somebody who disagrees with that point? If so, point me at them and I’ll tell them they are wrong. A rise in temperature can cause a rise in CO2.

“That pattern is crystal clear, and it has been repeated on time scales from months, out to hundreds of millennia”

If you like…but that pattern doesn’t work in one case and this is what I’ve shown several times now. Your pattern which appears to hold in many cases doesn’t hold in the case of the late twentieth century temperature trend and the late twentieth century CO2 trend.
So we have all these cases of CO2 following temperature and a case of CO2 *NOT* following temperature. If you are right the usual, natural, typical, normal hing for CO2 to do is follow temperature. If you are right then THE TWENTIETH CENTURY IS EXCEPTIONAL.
Does that PROVE global warming? Goodness no.
Is it a giant massive hint from the data that something very different has been going on? Yup.
I wonder what it might have been?

“Well, as a matter of fact, they do show that. ”
Sorry but that graph does the same thing I’ve already pointed out. By finding the derivative you have effectively removed the long term trend (which is roughly linear) from consideration. Once again you’ve provided a graph that shows the noisy wobbles in the graph have a strong relationship with temperature. I’m not disputing that but I am saying it explains nothing about the long term trend – except maybe ruling out temperature as an explanation.

“Oceans outgas CO2 as they warm, just like a warming Coke outgases CO2. ”
Yeah I know. Not disputing it. Do you know of ANY mainstream climate scientist who thinks temperature can’t cause an increase in CO2?

“Finally, I note that you avoid any mention of the testable, easily falsifiable scientific skeptics’ hypothesis:”

Because I’ve got enough on my plate explaining the error of interpretation that you and Bart have made – plus at least one contributor posting nothing but ad-hominems at me :). Aside from that thank you for replying politely and with substance.

“…your graphs show that on short time (1-3) years temperature changes leads CO2 changes. Nobody disputes that.”

Actually, ‘Nyq Only’ directly disputed that, saying:

“Do any of your graphs show that the general staedy growth of CO2 over at least the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond was caused by temperature? No – your graphs do *NOT* show that.”

As I’ve said many times, I agree with you that human emissions are part of the reason for the added atmospheric CO2. Even if human emissions are the reason for all of the additional CO2, that is not central to the debate.

What matters is whether the added CO2 is a problem. I keep asking ‘NyqOnly’ and others to produce verifiable evidence showing that CO2 causes global harm, or damage. Not one person has ever produced any such evidence. On the contrary, more CO2 is clearly beneficial.

The “carbon” scare is based entirely on the alarm that more CO2 is a bad thing. But those people cannot produce any verifiable, testable evidence to back up their contention. We are discussing science here, not their belief system. If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument. After a hundred and fifty years of rising CO2, there should be some evidence of harm or damage, no matter how small. But there is none. None at all.

Sure. Just make certain any claims show verifiable global deamage, due to human CO2 emissions. Make sure your evidence is testable per the Scientific Method, quantifiable, and attributable directly to human activity.

I don’t see how you can do that when no one else has been able to, but have at it if you think you can.

However, this thread is discussing the carbon cycle because that was the subject of Salby’s work (which is very similar to the earlier work of Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes). And research concerning behaviour of the carbon cycle is not only important as the subject of interesting scientific investigation. It also has important practical implications for public policy.

Nyq Only has a valid point.
Suppose you write the CO2 concentration as a function of time as a linear term , plus a term representing the rest of the variation, i.e

CO2(t) = a.t + F(t)

You can always do this – it is not an approximation. Then the derivative is

dCO2/dt = a + dF/dt

But with all the scale and offsets, the ‘a’ in that equation gets lost. So you are actually comparing the temperature anomalies with dF/dt, whatever that is, rather than dCO2/dt. As a result the graphs cannot be used to claim that all the CO2 rise over the last 50 or 60 years is due to temperature, nor can they be use to state the opposite, because this whole term is missing.

Now if the linear term were chosen as a ‘best fit’ of some kind, then the remainder F(t) would be something like the variance. So what the graphs are showing is that the variability away from the long term increase is controlled by temperature. This seems reasonable, as a major component must be the growth and die back of vegetation, and Ferdinand has already said this, and given a few other short term effects, higher up the thread.

“If this were merely an abstruse scientific issue then your mistake could be ignored: eventually data and understanding will be obtained to resolve the matter. However, others are now using the same mistake as an excuse to attempt imposition of harmful changes to energy and economic policies world-wide.”

I agree. That is exactly what is happening. True Believers like ‘Nyq Only’ and plenty of like-minded people are using their non-scientific beliefs to impose very harmful policies on the West [while conveniently ignoring the rest of the world’s CO2 emissions].

“Carbon” climate alarmism is political, and based on only a thin veneer of pseudo-science. If ‘Nyq Only’ really did have any solid evidence of global harm as requested, then so would everyone eles — and they would have been beating skeptics over the head 24/7/365 with verified examples of global harm resulting from CO2. But in fact, the geologic record tells us that when CO2 was high and rising, the biosphere teemed with life; low CO2 caused problems. [No doubt ‘Nyq Only’ has run back to SkS or wherever, looking for some talking points to support his beliefs.]

Those folks never seem able to produce any testable, verifiable evidence, per the Scientific Method. What they really want is for everyone to believe as they do. But unfortunately for the alarmist crowd, the general public is now beginning to understand that the “carbon” scare is just a giant grant-based scam.

dbstealy: “Just make certain any claims show verifiable global deamage, due to human CO2 emissions.”

Noted but I think I can answer this point “If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.” – even if additional CO2 or even additional warming was unequivocally beneficial. But I’ll save that argument for later :)

The limitation of Bart’s analysis seems to have been lost in debate with Ferdinand. They may both be right to some degree, or either one of them may be wrong. Allan’s work suggests Bart is probably more right than Ferdinand but neither is completely right.

CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past, with no runaway global warming — the central prediction of the alarmist crowd to higher atmospheric CO2. As we see, even if all the available fossil fuels were burned, CO2 would be far lower now than in the geologic past.

The more we learn, the more we see that CO2 simply does not have the predicted effects. Yet some people are still trying to convince us otherwise.

dbstealey says: August 17, 2013 at 5:22 pm
You are right – I don’t think anybody said “all” and several people defending yours and Bart’s claims have said that there could be some effect due to anthropogenic emissions. However in many messages strong claims have been made that any influence other than temperature is minimal, improbable or both.
dbstealey says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:52 pm
You probably know more than I do about this, but when I look at this 50+ year chart, I see that CO2 levels appear to be entirely temperature dependent — both rising and falling ∆CO2 levels. CO2 follows ∆T, both up and down, no?

Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm
The simplest explanation that we stay anchored to the ground is that the Earth is flat. Occam’s Razor does not demand the simplest explanation, it recommends the simplest explanation consistent with theory and observations.
The hypothesis that we are responsible for a significant portion of the atmospheric CO2 rise is inconsistent with those.
e.g.
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Occam’s Razor comes down very hard on the simplest explanation which fits the data: atmospheric CO2 is the result of a temperature dependent process which is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that process is effectively independent of human activity.

Allan MacRae says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:42 am
Ferdinand, it would not surprise me greatly if there is indeed a humanmade component to the increased atmospheric CO2. And indeed it could be partly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, not just deforestation. But as Richard correctly states, the fossil fuel component is a small part of natural global CO2 flux.

Allan MacRae says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2

Bart says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm
What is important here is that it the result of the approximation clearly indicates that what we are dealing with is mostly a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. This relationship, whatever it is in its full glory, accounts for ALL of the observed behavior, both in the long term and the short. There is no need to take account of human inputs to explain the behavior to a high degree of fidelity.

But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have NO SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIVE RECORD.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Allan, the question of the predictive record (in fact the sensitivity of temperature for the increase in CO2) is totally independent of the question of the origin of the increase. The knowledge of the causes of the CO2 increase are spread over a broader group of persons, including a lot of skeptics, like Willis Eschenbach, Lindzen and others. The competence of the climate model makers has nothing to do with that.
__________

Hello Ferdinand, your response to me initially concerned the Warmists, and now you have extended your comment to include the Skeptics.

My above comments addressed your original post, and referred to the utter lack of credibility of the Warmist camp.

The failures of the leading Warmists and their acolytes are not limited to their highly exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, where they have been discredited by about 10-20 years of no significant global warming..

In fact, the Warmists have many more scientific and technical failures, such as their false allegation that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to more extreme (wilder) weather, their support for wasteful and ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes, carbon taxes, carbon trading exchanges, skyrocketing energy costs, etc.

The Warmist narrative keeps changing as it is discredited, from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change“ aka “Wilder Weather“ to their latest, “Sustainability“.

Then there was the evidence of reprehensible Warmist behaviour in the ClimateGate emails, which clearly indicated that the global warming movement (acolytes call it “the Cause”) is controlled by a cabal closely related to the IPCC that routinely practiced scientific misrepresentation, vicious academic intimidation, and criminal avoidance of FOI requests.

Warmist scientific and ethical failures included the Mann hokey stick, the Divergence Problem, Mike’s Nature Trick, Hide the Decline, the intimidation of the editors of scientific journals and the firing of skeptics from universities – a long history of thuggish behaviour.

Contrary to IPCC projections, there has been NO net global warming for 10-20 years, and no evidence of wilder weather, more hurricanes, or tornados. “Green energy“ technologies have failed to produce significant amounts of useful net energy.

Every major conclusion written by the Warmists has proven false and some were clearly fraudulent.

Against this background of Warmist incompetence and infamy, you seem to be suggesting that raising legitimate questions about the huge and complex Carbon Cycle is hurting the credibility of the skeptics. I have heard this argument before, but sorry, I just do not accept it as reasonable, given the scientific facts and the sordid history of the false global warming crisis.

Furthermore, as I stated above, the origin of the increased atmospheric CO2 is scientifically important, but not that critical to the practical considerations that should be foremost in a rational discussion of climate science:
1. The impact of increased fossil fuel use is, to our knowledge, entirely beneficial for humanity and the environment, since atmospheric CO2 is excellent plant food and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at low, and perhaps DANGEROUSLY LOW levels.
2. We should be much more concerned about global cooling than global warming, since increased atmospheric CO2 will not materially alter Earth’s entry into the next Ice Age, which is imminent – if not within the next few years, then within the next several centuries.

Furthermore, as I stated above, the origin of the increased atmospheric CO2 is scientifically important, but not that critical to the practical considerations that should be foremost in a rational discussion of climate science: …

True, but that ignores what is happening in the public (n.b. not the scientific) arena where what “should be foremost” is not foremost.

It is being assumed that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and that assumption is being used as an excuse to attempt imposition of harmful changes to energy and economic policies world-wide.

The assumption may or may not be correct. But if it is not correct then the imposed policies are a serious mistake.

Also, and importantly, the existing AGW scare is but the latest in a series of false scares. It is important that scares only be founded on reality and not false assumptions.

It can be anticipated that as the AGW scare assuages it will be replaced by another scare. If the the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is assumed to be caused by the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 then that future scare can be based on the assumption.

The true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will become known eventually. If it turns out that the rise is natural and not significantly affected by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 then any future scare (such as ‘ocean acidification’) would be avoided if it were based on the fact of those emissions.

Furthermore, if the emissions are not causing the rise then the public respect for science will be harmed when the truth of the matter is determined. And that future harm will increase as the time taken to resolve the truth of the matter increases.

In summation, the needs of public policy and the reputation of science require that we resolve the true cause – anthropogenic or natural – of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I may react on more details why human emissions are the main (over 90%) of the CO2 increase over the past 50 years (and longer), but that would divert from the attention that Nyq Only draws on the non-compliancy of the temperature-CO2 relationship that Bart expected.

Besides that Bart’s theory violates about all observations, the increase of CO2 doesn’t follow the increase in temperature over the past 50 years. I would like to hear the comment of Bart on that point…

See, this is the problem with trying to educate the alarmist crowd. Even things that can be verified by a verbatim cut and paste are claimed to have never been said. For example:

“…the graphs cannot be used to claim that all the CO2 rise over the last 50 or 60 years is due to temperature.”

The folks arguing interminably about whether or not T has zero effect on CO2 always avoid answering the question of whether there is a problem. And that is the central question. Nyq Only has stated that he would show global damage from anthropogenic CO2. But we’re still waiting for any verifiable evidence of that.

This arguing over whether the added CO2 is due to human activity, in whole or in part, is like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pinhead. What does it possibly matter, if there are no adverse effects from CO2? The fact is that seriously beneficial effects result from more CO2, therefore on net balance, more CO2 is a good thing. CO2 is harmless. It is beneficial to the biosphere. I have repeatedly challenged anyone to try and falsify that easily testable hypothesis, but no one even refers to it — and we all know why: because the hypothesis cannot be falsified.

THAT should be the argument. But that argument is studiously avoided, because based on the evidence, more CO2 is an unmitigated good. As such, everyone should be cheering the rise in CO2. The fact that they don’t means they are arguing to protect their precious egos; because admitting that skeptics are right when we say there is nothing to worry about is more than alarmists can bring themselves to do. Climate alarmists simply cannot admit that scientific skeptics have been right all along about the “carbon” false alarm.

Either document solid evidence of global damage due to human-emitted CO2, or show us that you can admit that there is no problem with a little more of that beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere.

dbstealey says: August 18, 2013 at 9:29 am
“This arguing over whether the added CO2 is due to human activity, in whole or in part, is like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pinhead. What does it possibly matter, if there are no adverse effects from CO2?”

No offense intended but you’ve been arguing about this issue in this thread. This was a major topic and you appeared to have strong opinions about it.

I think Ferdinand and Jimmi and others have now shown that your argument was not correct. Your argument was a good argument and well put but in the end not actually correct for the reasons I’ve outlined which in the end were not very complex.

You now say I have to do more – that I have to show CO2 does harm. Well it has taken this long to at least begin to convince you that the rise in CO2 was not caused by temperature. To convince you that the rise was anthropogenic will take at least as long. To convince you that the anthropogenic rise caused the late twentieth century rise in temperature will take even longer. That the temperature rise will continue will also take some substantial amount of argument and persuasion. The effects on human society of that temperature rise itself will be multiple lines of argument – each one longer that what it took to get people to notice what happens when you find the derivative of a linear function. Seriously! Have a look at how long it took to get that one point over!

Convince you that damage will occur will take much more work than that – and I would imagine the heckling from some quarters will make the amount I got in this thread seem somewhat tame.

“he fact that they don’t means they are arguing to protect their precious egos; because admitting that skeptics are right when we say there is nothing to worry about is more than alarmists can bring themselves to do.”

Hmm don’t you just hate it when people can’t bring themselves to admit somebody they disagree with was right all along? :)

The problem I see is that you are lumping all believers in (some) influence of CO2 on temperature (harmful or not) together with the extremists in that camp. That are the Mann’s and other manipulators of data in this world. But there are others, the “luke warmers” like Roger Pielke Sr, Hans Von Storch and others, who genuinely believe that there may be some harm from increased CO2 levels, but who at the same time warn against the extreme “projections” of the extremists and even (Von Storch) admit that their own (low sensitivity) model at this moment fails.

There may be reason to question a lot of science in that field, but the questioning must be based on very solid evidence and fit all observations, if one want to fight a lot of evidence from the other side, which already fits all observations… If not, then you weaken your more solid objections on other items like the non-compliance of climate models with reality…

“…don’t you just hate it when people can’t bring themselves to admit somebody they disagree with was right all along?”

Since you have been wrong all along, I will let you answer your own question. For just one example that you are wrong, here is your quote regarding CO2:

“…damage will occur…”

You are speculating based on your Beliefs. To presume that something “will occur” shows that it has not occurred. You are hoping, and pretty desperately so, that some sort of global damage will result from the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. So far, there is no quantifiable evidence of any global damage from the rise in CO2.

Your assertion from yesterday stated that you would be presenting verifiable evidence of such global damage. That has now gone by the wayside, replaced with your new assertion that damage “will occur”. I knew you would not be able to post verifiable, testable evidence showing global harm from CO2, because no one else has been able to post such evidence, and smarter people than you have tried. As a matter of fact, CO2 is every bit as beneficial and necessary to life on earth as H2O. That shows you how ridiculous the “carbon” scare is.

In fact, there is no verifiable evidence of global harm from the rise in the tiny trace gas CO2. So now your fallback position is that damage “will occur” at some future time. That is a climbdown from your previous assurance that you would be coming back here with testable evidence showing that CO2 has caused global harm.

Really, all you are doing is moving the goal posts again — a failed tactic of the runaway global warming cult. But that is certainly not science. It is just more false alarmism.

Finally, like others before you, you try to paint me into a corner when you claim that I disagree with Ferdinand Engelbeen. On the whole, we are in agreement. In fact, my only dispute [if you can call it that] with Ferdinand is that he does not point out often enough that there is no evidence showing global harm from the rise in CO2. However, he has stated that fact in the past. Also, possibly he and I may disagree on the exact percentage of CO2 attributable to human activity. But that is only nitpicking. Ferdinand convinced me long ago that the recent rise in CO2 is caused by humans, and we have discussed that. So you are really not up to speed on any of this.

IMO 4-8% of present CO2 concentration is attributable to human activity. That equates to 13-27% of the rise from ~280 to ~400 ppmv of dry air since c. 1850. But even if half of the increase is man-made, which I doubt, then people are responsible for only 15% of the present total. In any case the increase has been beneficial.

That equates to 13-27% of the rise from ~280 to ~400 ppmv of dry air since c. 1850.

No, that equates to 95% of the rise since 1850. The remaining fraction of the human contribution and the cause of the increase have little to do with each other. The fraction is largely influenced by the dilution from the other reservoirs, mainly the deep oceans. But the fraction of the human contribution and the change in total mass due to the human contribution are (near) completely independent of each other.

The following plot shows the decay of a 100 GtC pulse of human emissions, if that happened at once 160 years ago:
where FA is the fraction of human emissions residing in the atmosphere, FL the same in the ocean surface (not relevant here), tCA total carbon in the atmosphere and nCA natural carbon in the atmosphere. After some 60 years, most of the human CO2 disappeared out of the atmosphere while still 40% of the original pulse in mass is present. All what happened is that the original human CO2 was replaced by natural CO2, without affecting the total mass of CO2, which height over equilibrium still is caused by the original pulse.

For the real emissions over the past 160 years, that gives:
Where the fraction of the human contribution is about 9%, but 95% of the increase is caused by humans, the remaining 5% is from the temperature increase over the same period.

I appreciate your effort to make a valid estimate. You may well be right, but IMO science doesn’t know enough about carbon sinks to achieve such precision. Nor is it really known with a high degree of probability what CO2 concentrations have been in prior interglacials. But I could be wrong.

There are a lot of estimates for the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. These give an average of slightly over 5 years for any molecule of CO2 (whatever its origin) in the atmosphere (800 GtC in the atmosphere, 150 GtC throughput = 5.3 years residence time). That makes that human induced low-13C CO2 is exchanged with 13C rich(er) CO2 from other reservoirs with such a relative fast decay time.

The decay time for an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back to equilibrium is known with relative high accuracy, whithout any knowledge of any part of the carbon cycle: Today, there is an excess of ~100 ppmv CO2 (212 GtC) over the pre-industrial equilibrium. That results in a yearly removal of ~4 GtC CO2 in whatever sinks. That gives an “excess decay” time of 212/4=53 years. Or a half life time of ~40 years.

Modern ice core measurements via sublimation and cryogenic separation of all constituents are accurate with a repeatability of samples in the same part of the core to ~1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for cores going 800 kyr back in time. Between ice cores from different places under very different conditions of temperature, snow accumulation and resulting pressure in the ice column, the results are within 5 ppmv for the same average gas age…

dbstealey: “For just one example that you are wrong, here is your quote regarding CO2:

“…damage will occur…””

Well the quote actually is “Convince you that damage will occur will take much more work than that ”
And you are saying that I’m wrong on this? That implies that it would take LESS work – and I’m sure you didn’t mean that. Here is a link that might make it easier to follow the text http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393988
Also you can use control+ on your browser to zoom into the text – it will make it a bit easier for you to read.

“Your assertion from yesterday stated that you would be presenting verifiable evidence of such global damage. ”

No it didn’t. Again you might want to read the words I wrote – may help you follow the discussion.

Either your memory is shot, or you are intentionally obfuscating. I suspect the latter.

Up thread I asked for solid evidence showing global damage due to anthropogenic CO2, saying:

“If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.”

You responded:

“Well tell you what. Next open thread ask again and I’ll give an answer to that specific point. Deal?”

Yeah, yeah, deal. As if you could give a credible answer when no one else ever has. As I stated: if there was verifiable global harm due to the [natural] rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, then the alarmist cult would have been beating scientific skeptics over the head with that evidence 24/7/365. Instead, whenever I challenge them to put up or shut up, they shut up. In your case, you pushed your ‘evidence’ off into the future.

Why won’t you just post your so-called “evidence” right here and now? That reeks of game-playing, just like you future tense, unprovable claim that “damage will occur”. Needless to say, your wild-eyed predictions don’t count for squat. The alarmist crowd has been 100% wrong in its predictions so far, so basing your argument on vague future predictions lacks any credibility. You are still just speculating based on your Beliefs.

Let’s see your ‘credible argument’ showing global harm due specifically to anthropogenic CO2 right now. Make it verifiable and testable, and make sure it shows that human CO2 emissions are the direct cause of global damage. Not “possible”; but direct, traceable to human emissions, and verifiable. Quit beating around the bush. Show your putative ‘global damage’ from CO2. Then trace it directly back to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Good luck with that.

Finally, you still avoid the hypothesis I continually post, which in effect says the same thing: at current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Falsify that easily testable hypothesis, if you think you can. It amounts to the same thing as saying there is no verifiable, testable global harm due to the rise in anthropogenic CO2. And unlike your alarmist beliefs, it is based on the Scientific Method.

dbstealey: “Up thread I asked for solid evidence showing global damage due to anthropogenic CO2, saying: “If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.”

Your statement is a proposition saying that *IF* the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2 THEN they have no credible argument. I believe that proposition is false. i.e. even if the “alarmist crowd” cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2 then they still have a credible argument.

If you meant to write something else with that proposition then I’m sorry but I can only go off what you have actually said.

Seems now you want to play some illogical game on that point. Sorry db, if you want a rational debate you have to offer a rational debate. You now seem to be engaged in fighting a fantasy argument with a fantasy opponent.

In the meantime I’ll pick and choose what I discuss and when – just as you do.

LOL – thanks I needed a chuckle. I get that you are a little upset about me demonstrating where you went wrong with the link between CO2 and temperature but you need to think what is the effective way of responding to that. Even richardscourtney eventually ended up conceding that Bart’s reasoning was in error.

The very first comment on this post was this from ferdberple: “If the facts support your case, argue the facts. If the facts support your opponent, argue the man.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387014
It seems some people took that as an instruction rather than as warning. If you (or Richard) wish to portray yourselves as people uninterested in scientific debate then by all means spend your time writing posts about how much you don’t like me. It advances your cause not one jot.

The fact is nothing is forthcoming to show how man made CO2 has made things horrible. I have watched how Nyq Only has tried to avoid this but he has failed. We are still in that awkward zone where no evidence for the disaster that man made CO2 is supposed to have wrought has been presented.

Thanks Richard and Bart and Dave, those alarmists still have no anchor.

I had a nice, long weekend vacation. At least the conversation did not break any new ground while I was away.

Chris Schoneveld says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:23 pm

“Now, how do you respond to Engelbeen’s conclusion that in that case we have to assume a CO2 “increase of over 100 ppmv/K””

It is a mistake to say it is a temperature driven process. It is temperature dependent, but it is driven by something such as the upwelling of CO2 rich waters, such as I have suggested previously in the thread. It cannot be human inputs, though, as they are not temperature dependent, at least to first order.

Nyq Only says:
August 19, 2013 at 11:37 am

This post and others. You allege I have made a mistake, but since you don’t know what you are doing, you misinterpret what you have found. I tried to explain your rather trivial error, but since you do not understand the math, it is futile.

Just to restate the answer to Nyq’s silly argument, the question is, do these series match, or do they not? If they do (and, they do), then the integrated CO2 lags temperature by 90 degrees in phase. It is tautological, and Nyq’s confused generation of plots he does not understand will never change that fact.

Sorry Richard and db, but Nyq is right: we were debating the fact that the current CO2 increase in the atmosphere is NOT following the temperature increase as theorised by Salby, Bart en others. That is an important point and I want to see the reaction of Salby and Bart on that.

The discussion about the effect of the increase is of course interesting, and should be the ultimate fight between warmers, luke-warmers, coolers and everybody inbetween, but that is NOT at order now, as that is complete unrelated question to what the cause of the rise in CO2 is.

Nyq and I and many others would be interested in a debate over the effects of the increase, but NOT NOW, NOT HERE.

Pre-industrial (for most of the world) equilibrium of course was for the LIA. As you know, CO2 was locally measured in the 400s ppm in the 19th century, but probably too close to coal-fired industry & heating.

Your estimate of 5% of the CO2 gain since then may well be about right, ie ~six ppm. Stomatal indeces suggest high of ~300 ppm for the early Eemian, which by itself should falsify the hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate, since that prior interglacial was so much warmer than the current one.

Dunno about previous interglacials.

I hope that CO2 keeps rising so that the world can enjoy more bounty. As I’ve commented before, I’d be OK with anything under real greenhouse levels, ie ~1000 ppm, where some people start getting headaches. Making reasonable assumptions about equilibrium CO2 sinks, probably 600 ppm is the best we can expect if people continue relying upon fossil fuels to the present extent.

Soot & other genuine pollutants are IMO reasons for switching to other energy sources when economically feasible, rather than CO2 emissions, which are beneficial.

If we’re lucky, there will be something to the GHG hypothesis & we can keep the next glaciation at bay. Cold is the killer.

It is temperature dependent, but it is driven by something such as the upwelling of CO2 rich waters, such as I have suggested previously in the thread. It cannot be human inputs, though, as they are not temperature dependent, at least to first order.

Two coincidences on a row to explain something that the human emissions can do on their own:

– the increase in CO2 caused by temperature just started at the same time and in exact ratio with human emissions.
– the increase in CO2 caused by upwelling just started at the same time and in exact ratio with human emissions.

Of course, the human inputs are not responsible for the year by year wobbles, temperature is. But temperature is not responsible for the increase in CO2, as the CO2 increase doesn’t follow temperature over the past 50 years…

“The fact is nothing is forthcoming to show how man made CO2 has made things horrible. I have watched how Nyq Only has tried to avoid this but he has failed. We are still in that awkward zone where no evidence for the disaster that man made CO2 is supposed to have wrought has been presented.”

Nyq Only still cannot produce any evidence of global harm from CO2. He’s got nothin’. In fact, he has tried every which way to avoid presenting his “evidence” for global harm, because there is no such evidence.

And that is the crux of the matter: if CO2 is harmless, then the entire alarmist argument is pointless nonsense. Angels dancing on pinheads. IOW: they got nothin’.

==============================

Ferdinand says:

“…the current CO2 increase in the atmosphere is NOT following the temperature increase…”

Of course it is. Ferdinand, I am really surprised at you. Why are you completely disregarding all the empirical evidence that I and others have posted, showing conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2?

As I’ve stated repeatedly, that does not mean that CO2 does not also affect temperature. The problem with that, however, is that any such effect is too small to measure. Otherwise, you would have posted a chart of such measurements — which I have repeatedly asked for, but to no avail.

I’ve also explained that I’m a “show me” kind of guy: if you cannot post verifiable, measurable, empirical evidence, then all you are doing is making conjectures. Nothing wrong with that — as far as it goes. However, there is solid empirical [real world] observational evidence showing that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 — but there are no equivalent charts showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. They may, I suppose. But: “show me”.

“- the increase in CO2 caused by temperature just started at the same time and in exact ratio with human emissions.
– the increase in CO2 caused by upwelling just started at the same time and in exact ratio with human emissions.”

These are trivial post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalizations.

“But temperature is not responsible for the increase in CO2, as the CO2 increase doesn’t follow temperature over the past 50 years…”

Everyone agrees that CO2 follows temperature except in the most relevant case of the last half century.

Nyq Only points out that the changes (delta) in CO2 follow temperature but the magnitude is wrong. More CO2 appears than would be expected from temperature changes.

But then he assumes that the extra CO2 is manmade. It isn’t all an effect of temperature therefore it is manmade… ?

So, temperature cannot effect a non-linear change in CO2 reservoirs?
The reservoirs (which dwarf man’s emissions) cannot change by independent causes?
The extra CO2 is known to be able to unbalance the reservoirs because man’s CO2 is particularly sneaky?

There are a lot of assumptions in this hypothesis that are not yet justified.

Sorry Bart, and dbstealey, but the problem is that while your graphs line up nicely, they are not the graphs you are looking for. They do not show what you think. I am not a climate scientist so it took me a couple of attempts, but when I figured out what you were doing, then it became clear that you were not plotting the relationship between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 concentration, or its derivative, you are plotting the relationship with the variation of the trend away from its predominately linear increase i.e you are plotting the non-linar part of the relationship. But since the linear trend dominates (over the past century or so) you are missing the bulk of the increase in your analysis.

But since the linear trend dominates (over the past century or so) you are missing the bulk of the increase in your analysis.

Indeed so, and this illustrates the adoption of assumptions by both ‘sides’ of this debate.

Firstly, I remind you that in an above post dbstealey said he is more convinced by Ferdinand than by Bart.

Bart’s basic assumption is that “bulk of the increase” is related to the long-term trend in the global temperature which is recovery from the LIA (and cannot be an anthropogenic effect).

This assumption is reasonable but does represent a circular argument when concluding the cause of the “bulk of the increase” is induced by the temperature rise.

Similarly, the other ‘side’ (here ably represented by Ferdinand) assumes the atmospheric CO2 would be in equilibrium were it not for anthropogenic CO2 emission. This, too, represents a circular argument when concluding the cause of the “bulk of the increase” is induced by the anthropogenic emission.

In both cases the argument is circular for the same reason; i.e. an assumption cannot prove itself.

This use of assumptions by both ‘sides’ is one reason why neither ‘side’ convinces me to jump off the fence on one ‘side’.

You, too? When graphs “line up”, they are generally an overlay of two graphs. They show CO2, and temperature. But it cannot be determined which is the cause, and which is the effect.

In the charts I have posted [like this one], you can see that T rose, and CO2 subsequently rose; T declined, then CO2 subsequently declined. Over, and over, and over — from months to hundreds of millennia. T always leads CO2. If that does not show cause and effect, then I’m talking to a brick wall.

All I have been asking for in return is a comparable chart, which shows a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and a subsequent change in temperature. In other words, a chart that shows that ∆CO2 causes ∆T, in the same way that the charts I posted show conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2.

But so far, no one has been able to find and post any such charts. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if CO2 does affect T, then at current CO2 concentrations the effect is simply too small to measure.

dbstealey, The millennia long graph from the ice cores is I’m afraid irrelevant. Nobody doubts that temperature led CO2 there and that the gradual rise from ~200 ppm to ~300 ppm, and back, over 100000 years is due to that. The question is what is the most plausible cause of the rise from ~300 ppm to 400 ppm over 100 years. Your graph from WFT has used the isolate facility, and to quote WFT “Isolate Months Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise'” Note that – subtracts the mean to leave the noise – you are lining up the noise not the bulk data, which is also what taking a derivative will do since the linear term is most of the increase. And as Ferdinand Engelbeen says, there are two separate questions, the cause of the rise in CO2 and its effect.

That’s why I posted other graphs, some going back more than 400,000 years. In every time scale ∆CO2 follows ∆T. Once again, the chart you posted above is only an overlay that shows CO2 & T. But it does not show cause and effect like the charts I posted do.

==============================

jimmi_the_dalek says:

“… there are two separate questions, the cause of the rise in CO2 and its effect.”

Yes. I agree that human emissions have resulted in more atmospheric CO2. But then, that has been my position for a long time. It is also not the issue.

The issue is in your second statement, concerning any putative effect of the rise in CO2.

So far, no one has produced any evidence of any effect from the rise in CO2. I have explaned why, when I linked to this chart.

Any effect from the added CO2 is too minuscule to measure. That is why there are no testable measurements showing any added warming from the added CO2 [in fact, the evidence shows cooling].

Your analysis of circular reasoning by both sides in the debate over the main cause of the rise from ~280 to 400 ppmv of dry air invokes the logical fallacy called “begging the question”, ie assuming what you intend to prove. (I wish people would quit using this useful term to mean “raising the question”, but that’s beside your point.)

I am being persuaded by the good Dr. Engelbeen, however I haven’t studied Bart’s position enough.

But IMO the predominant cause of the rise doesn’t matter much, since it is a good thing. If humans are largely to “blame”, then we should keep adding more CO2 to the air, although I hope accompanied by fewer real pollutants than is usual in the developing world. It would help if Obama would let the US sell our cleaner, high-BTU-content coal to China.

In any case, going from three molecules of CO2 per 10,000 to four now has too small an effect on global temperature to be measured within margin of error. Continuing to six would still have a barely measurable effect, IMO, while further fertilizing & greening the earth, making life better for humans, especially those now suffering energy starvation & concomitant famishing starvation.

Since temperature, as questionably measured by NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, et al, has flat-lined since c. 1996 & is probably in reality trending down, science should be able to observe in coming years the effect on CO2 of global cooling. Maybe science already has enough observations to estimate the effect on outgassing of small delta T fluctuations, but more would be welcome.

Only the satellite data should count, unfortunately, however, due to the corruption of land station instrumental records.

How unfair that some regions should be so rich in rain & others so deprived. This blatantly humidist situation cannot be allowed to stand. The reverse is true of sunshine, another obvious source for the additional tax receipts of which benevolent, omniscient governments which are here only to help need so much more, for the children.

Come to think of it, what resources on our planet aren’t in urgent need of being redistributed by benevolent governments instead of greedy individuals & their nefarious private associations? Only governments are great, good, humanitarian & altruistic, as of course are the “scientists” whom they hire.

Sorry, jimmi, no. There is a functional relationship with temperature. A general method for constructing a model of a function is to use a polynomial base. It is very general because a smooth, differentialble function can always be represented by its Taylor series expansion.

We generally start with the lowest orders, and truncate the expansion which the fit is good enough. In this case, a constant and a linear term for the rate of change of CO2 is found to be good.

Now, you can argue that my constant value is arbitrary, and I could vary it and substitute some other constant rate driving force in its place. But, as far as human inputs are concerned, the question is moot, because they have not at all been constant in rate (top plot).

richardscourtney says:
August 19, 2013 at 3:20 pm

“Bart’s basic assumption is that “bulk of the increase” is related to the long-term trend in the global temperature…”

No, my basic assumption is that the bulk of the increase is due to a temperature dependent pumping action into the atmosphere, most likely from upwelling of carbon rich waters from the depths. Human inputs are not temperature dependent, hence do not fit the bill.

milodonharlani says:
August 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm

“Since temperature, as questionably measured by NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, et al, has flat-lined since c. 1996 & is probably in reality trending down, science should be able to observe in coming years the effect on CO2 of global cooling.”

And, that is precisely what we are seeing. As temperatures fall off, so is the rate of change of CO2 in lockstep. The rate of emissions continues to increase, and the two series are diverging from their superficial affine similarity which prevailed from about 1958 to 1990. It was just a chance meeting, and now they are going their separate ways.

“Only the satellite data should count, unfortunately, however, due to the corruption of land station instrumental records.”

“No, my basic assumption is that the bulk of the increase is due to a temperature dependent pumping action into the atmosphere, most likely from upwelling of carbon rich waters from the depths.”

If my previous comment has not yet appeared, that quote from it may cause confusion. The post will, I am sure, appear soon. It probably got trapped by the comment filter for multiple links.

Actually, it is not my assumption that “the bulk of the increase is due to a temperature dependent pumping action into the atmosphere.” My assumption is that the excellent fit between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of CO2, in both the short term and the long term and, indeed, across the entire frequency spectrum, is not coincidental. Given the incredible coincidence that would represent, I judge the assumption to be on solid ground. The reason for the increase follows from that fundamental assumption.

Allan, that site you just gave shows one weeks worth of CO2 measurements, I hardly think you would see anything in that time. It looks as if the University of Utah has only been measuring for about 10 years,but if you look at that time period,http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=1&id=0&img=12
you can see the rise in the base line.

If you don’t like that graph, here’s another you can argue about. The fact is, they both show cause and effect: ∆T causes ∆CO2.

db, again, the graphs you refer to don’t show what happened with the increase over the past 50 years, simply because by using the rate of change (the derivative of the CO2 and temperature trends) you have essentially removed the trend. Thus your graphs doesn’t show what happened with temperature and CO2 over the past decades. If you plot the real trends, then it is clear that the increase in CO2 doesn’t follow temperature over the past 50 years and certainly not in the early 1900’s, but that it follows the emissions:

In pre-indsutrial times, CO2 always followed temperature. For short term variability, CO2 still follows temperature variability, but the increase over the past decades doesn’t follow temperature…

Bart,
If you know about Taylor series then I am even more surprised that you have not seen what you have done.
“Now, you can argue that my constant value is arbitrary, and I could vary it and substitute some other constant rate driving force in its place.”
No, I would not argue that your constant is arbitrary – quite the opposite – I would argue that the constant is fixed, and that you are not allowed to change it, because if you do, then you have changed the derivative of the linear term. The fact that you have done so, by scaling the curves, is why you have lost the long term trend (defining ‘long term’ in this case as 50-60 years) and are left only with the short 2-3 year oscillations. Now it seems that people agree that the short term oscillations are temperature dependent, but since you have lost the linear term, you cannot say anything about the temperature dependence of the overall trend – you have thrown away the information that is relevant to that,

dbstealey, the graph you suggested at http://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/co2-temperature-roc.png
unfortunately does not have enough detail to know how it was calculated, even after tracking it back to the original article. However it seems to be comparing derivatives, and from the spacing of the peaks, is only looking at short term variation. So, like the others, this graph proves nothing about the longer term trend.

CO2 is such a scarce and excellent plant food that it is gobbled up very close to the source during the growing season….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will agree with you there. Also remember the metabolic temperature dependence of microbes, plants and insects
WHEAT: “….The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values….”http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

CO2 depletion in a greenhouse

Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source

And If you go to Barrow there are microbes, and the oceans mucking up the works too.

Our work was motivated by discoveries of prokaryotic communities that survive with little nutrient in ice and permafrost, with implications for past or present microbial life in Martian permafrost and Europan ice. We compared the temperature dependence of metabolic rates of microbial communities in permafrost, ice, snow, clouds, oceans, lakes, marine and freshwater sediments, and subsurface aquifer sediments….
There is no evidence of a minimum temperature for metabolism. The rate at -40°C in ice corresponds to ≈10 turnovers of cellular carbon per billion years. Microbes in ice and permafrost have metabolic rates similar to those in water, soil, and sediment at the same temperature. This finding supports the view that, far below the freezing point, liquid water inside ice and permafrost is available for metabolism. The rate μs(T) for repairing molecular damage by means of DNA-repair enzymes and protein-repair enzymes such as methyltransferase is found to be comparable to the rate of spontaneous molecular damage.

The Russians did a bit of work in the Arctic area:

ARCTIC ICE AND CARBONIC ACID GAS
Genryh Alekseyev, Doctor of Science (Geography), Head of the department of the ocean and atmosphere interaction ,St. Petersburg , Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences

In 2004-2005, Russian polar explorers measured for the first time the carbonic acid gas concentration in the atmosphere in different seasons at the SP-33 and SP-34 floating stations. Specialists of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, analyzed results of these measurements and came to the conclusion that seasonal fluctuations in the ÑÎ2 concentration depended on sea ice growth and thawing….
At the zero temperature, lime water reacts with ÑÎ2, thus forming dissoluble calcium bicarbonate. Carbon acid gas dissolves excellently in cold water, therefore its summer concentration in the atmosphere decreases not only due to chemical reaction. It is absorbed by desalinated water on the surface of patches of ice-free water, cracks and channel. In summer, plankton life activates in the top water layer, and photosynthesis is taking place, which also requires CO2. As a result of all these processes, summer minimum of carbonic acid gas occurs in the air above the ice and in the water layer under the ice.

Nobody has measured yet the carbon dioxide concentration above and under the ice during the entire year in the Arctic basin and the Arctic seas. Therefore, the researchers can not experimentally prove their hypothesis. Nevertheless, they have indirect evidence. The more ice and water is involved in mutual seasonal transitions, the larger is the range in seasonal fluctuations of the ÑÎ2 concentration. Besides, monthly change of carbonic acid gas concentration in Barrow during 1980 through 1990 coincides with changes in ice thickness in the Arctic basin.

The Russian researchers assume with confidence that ice formation and growth in winter may be the reason for increase in the ÑÎ2 seasonal fluctuations in high latitudes, and the Arctic may basin be the source of carbonic acid gas on average during a year. The more ice freezes on in winter, the higher the ÑÎ2.concentration will be.

And then there are termites. Termites beat us hands down.
According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogenhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.short
Termites may emit large quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen into the atmosphere. Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5 x 1014 grams of methane and 5 x 1016 grams of carbon dioxide. As much as 2 x 1014 grams of molecular hydrogen may also be produced. Field measurements of methane emissions from two termite nests in Guatemala corroborated the laboratory results. The largest emissions should occur in tropical areas disturbed by human activities.

(They just had to get that dig in about humans increasing CO2 didn’t they)

“So why are the graphs so unscientifically pat? One reason is provided by the IPCC:The longitudinal variations in CO2 concentration reflecting net surface sources and sinks are on annual average typically calibration procedures within and between monitoring networks (Keeling et al., 1989; Conway et al., 1994). Bold added, TAR, p. 211.So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement. And there can be no other meaning for “calibration procedures … between monitoring networks”. It accounts for coincidence in simultaneous records and it accounts for continuity between adjacent records. The most interesting information in this procedure would be the exact amount of calibration necessary to achieve the objective of nearly flawless measuring with the modern record dominating. The IPCC’s method is unacceptable in science. It is akin to the IPCC practice of making “flux adjustments” to make its various models agree. See TAR for 87 references to “flux adjustment”, and see 4AR for its excuse, condemnation, and abandonment. 4AR p. 117. ”

Why does everyone make the assumption that the CO2 readings are good when we know the same advocates of the “cause” have mucked around with the temperature data and adjusted it to show warming?

An interesting bit of history:

July 3, 2010 Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming
Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.
Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 — when Nixon began his presidency — to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at……

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970….

jimmi_the_dalek says: August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am
Allan, that site you just gave shows one weeks worth of CO2 measurements, I hardly think you would see anything in that time. It looks as if the University of Utah has only been measuring for about 10 years,but if you look at that time period,http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=1&id=0&img=12
you can see the rise in the base line.
_________________

Your comment misses the point jimmy.

The point is that even in urban environments where most fossil fuels are burned, the daily CO2 signature is overwhelmingly natural – the urban CO2 peaks do not occur at morning and evening rush hours as one might expect if the primary driver was humanmade; the urban CO2 peaks occur in the middle of the night, and are lowest during the day, due to urban plant photosynthesis.

This may be where the “mass balance argument” falls apart. The natural CO2 cycle is apparently not a bath tub, where you add CO2 at all points on the globe and they all fill up the same big tub. CO2 is apparently so scarce that the excess amounts produced by fossil fuel activity just effectively disappear, quickly sequestered in the natural environment by increased botanic activity. The fact that there is no apparent daily CO2 signature even at the CO2 urban source provides a further insight into the complexity of this question.

Several parties keep repeating the old mantra – that atmospheric CO2 levels are currently increasing – we all get that.

The key point is we do not know WHY atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing.

Richard has ably dissected the mass balance argument.

Humanmade CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels is a small portion of total annual CO2 flux.

Furthermore, that humanmade CO2 does not even leave a characteristic daily signature in the urban environment, and the annual “sawtooth” rise and fall of CO2 is also overwhelmingly natural.

Finally, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. This could nature’s way of telling us that the CO2 cycle is also overwhelmingly natural and temperature drives CO2, and possibly that the humanmade component from fossil fuel combustion is not the primary cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

I remind you of my above post where I pointed out that atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually declined occasionally during the cooling period from ~1940-1975, despite ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels.

Your analysis of circular reasoning by both sides in the debate over the main cause of the rise from ~280 to 400 ppmv of dry air invokes the logical fallacy called “begging the question”, ie assuming what you intend to prove.

No. My “analysis” (actually, explanation) explains that the arguments of Bart and Ferdinand each assume what they intend to prove.

My “analysis” does NOT invoke the logical fallacy of ‘begging the question': it explains that Bart and Ferdinand each does..

Sorry Richard, the cause of the rise ~300 ppm to ~ 400 ppm requires a hypothesis. As such it (whatever it is) cannot be proved TRUE as hypotheses can only be supported, or proved false.
Consequently my statement that we are looking for the most plausible explanation i.e the explanation which best fits the available observations, is in fact the correct terminology.

“Bart’s basic assumption is that “bulk of the increase” is related to the long-term trend in the global temperature…”

No, my basic assumption is that the bulk of the increase is due to a temperature dependent pumping action into the atmosphere, most likely from upwelling of carbon rich waters from the depths. Human inputs are not temperature dependent, hence do not fit the bill.

Bart’s basic assumption is that “bulk of the increase” is related to the long-term trend in the global temperature which is recovery from the LIA (and cannot be an anthropogenic effect).

This assumption is reasonable but does represent a circular argument when concluding the cause of the “bulk of the increase” is induced by the temperature rise.

That clearly IS your basic assumption because – as I have told you in the past and jimmi_the_dalek has repeatedly said in this thread – you have an unaccounted linear term.

The mechanism by which temperature has a “pumping action into the atmosphere” is not relevant to – and is not indicated by – your analysis.

The importance of your analysis is that it does provide direct empirical evidence for a temperature effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. And when your analysis does provide that evidence then your assumption is very reasonable because there has been a long-term rise in temperature from the LIA. But it is an assumption.

Also, you may care to note that there is no direct empirical evidence for an anthropogenic effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. To date, Ferdinand and others have failed to provide such direct empirical evidence but – of course – that does NOT indicate there is no anthropogenic effect.

“Just to restate the answer to Nyq’s silly argument, the question is, do these series match, or do they not? If they do (and, they do), then the integrated CO2 lags temperature by 90 degrees in phase.”

The integral of WHAT YOU HAVE GRAPHED might but by finding the derivative and adjusting offset and scale you’ve thrown away effect of the linear trend. I think Nick Stokes first pointed this out and it remains elementary calculus. If you can explain why I am wrong your comrades may appreciate it.

M Courtney says: August 19, 2013 at 1:56 pm
“But then he assumes that the extra CO2 is manmade. It isn’t all an effect of temperature therefore it is manmade… ?So, temperature cannot effect a non-linear change in CO2 reservoirs?
The reservoirs (which dwarf man’s emissions) cannot change by independent causes?
The extra CO2 is known to be able to unbalance the reservoirs because man’s CO2 is particularly sneaky?”

Where I wandered it to the CO2 aspect of this thread was regarding Occam’s Razor – my claim was that simplest hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. That isn’t the same as proof or very strong evidence put let us pursue that.
Richard S Courtney has shown there is certainly ‘space’ for other hypotheses. Anthropogenic emissions aren’t so large that the only possible source of the rise must be anthropogenic. However we would need to judge such alternate hypotheses based on their own merits. Anthropogenic emissions are a ‘prime suspect’. Now there are potentially other lines of evidence but lets us look at some compelling evidence for an anthopogenic cause that has come from dbstealey. Dbstealey has produce numerous lines of evidence that show CO2 following temperature at a variety of time scales and time periods. Now we would expect that if the late twentieth century rise was due to some normal natural cause that wasn’t temperature then at SOME OTHER TIMES CO2 would not follow temperature. So dbstealey’s graph show that the late twentieth rise is atypical – at least apparently.
So this lends further credence to an anthropogenic cause but we can’t rule out a natural cause yet. There is another possibility – the late twentieth century rise only may only SEEM atypical because this is the time scale we have most accurately measured CO2 concentration and temperature is in that time period. Beyond my skill to rule that out – although not necessarily beyond the skill of others.

This may be where the “mass balance argument” falls apart. The natural CO2 cycle is apparently not a bath tub, where you add CO2 at all points on the globe and they all fill up the same big tub. CO2 is apparently so scarce that the excess amounts produced by fossil fuel activity just effectively disappear, quickly sequestered in the natural environment by increased botanic activity. The fact that there is no apparent daily CO2 signature even at the CO2 urban source provides a further insight into the complexity of this question.

YES! And, as I said above, this daily fluctuation also provides information on the dynamics of the carbon cycle. These dynamics exhibited by the seasonal variation provide the paradox which I have repeated asked to be addressed in this thread. Indeed, this daily fluctuation is another rebuttal of Ferdinand’s answer to the paradox.

I remind that paradox is stated by this question:Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

Our (i.e. Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes) explanation of it is that something – natural and/or anthropogenic – has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle, and the rate of transition to the new equilibrium is limited by the rate of carbon transfer between the ocean surface layer and deep ocean.

It is very general because a smooth, differentialble function can always be represented by its Taylor series expansion.

That is nothing but curve fitting and doesn’t tell anythng of what caused the curve…

But, as far as human inputs are concerned, the question is moot, because they have not at all been constant in rate (top plot).

The sink rate doesn’t depend of the year by year emissions, but on the pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above the equilibrium pressure. That depends thus of the accumulation rate in the atmosphere, which is in an incredible constant ratio with the total amount of the emissions. The correlation with temperature is far worse:
and
note that the main increase is in the NH, not at the upwelling places in the equatorial SH
here the temperature curve:

Human inputs are not temperature dependent, hence do not fit the bill.

The sink rate and therefore the increase in the atmosphere is mainly pressure dependent, not temperature dependent. Temperature variations only fit the fast variability in CO2 rate of change, but don’t fit the trend, except by using an arbitrary offset…

As temperatures fall off, so is the rate of change of CO2 in lockstep. The rate of emissions continues to increase, and the two series are diverging

The pressure dependence of the sink rate remains about the same as in other periods and fits the curve as good as the temperature dependency for the period after 2000:

Sorry Richard, the cause of the rise ~300 ppm to ~ 400 ppm requires a hypothesis. As such it (whatever it is) cannot be proved TRUE as hypotheses can only be supported, or proved false.
Consequently my statement that we are looking for the most plausible explanation i.e the explanation which best fits the available observations, is in fact the correct terminology.

We could debate semantics all day. I do not intend to waste space on the thread by doing that.

We are seeking the nearest approximation to truth indicated by all available information. Many things may be “plausible” and it is merely subjective opinion as to which is most plausible. I seek evidence which falsifies all hypotheses except one which then becomes a theory.

And that is why I ‘sit on the fence’ in the debate of this thread. Ferdinand and Bart each provide plausible hypotheses. When one is falsified then – in the absence of another hypothesis – I will adopt the other as a theory until additional empirical evidence falsifies that theory.

Nyq Only says ” I think Nick Stokes first pointed this out and it remains elementary calculus”

You are correct, it was. I have just read through the whole thread again and he pointed this out on Aug 12 at 2:45 am, though Ferdinand Engelbeen must also have known this. It seems the flaw has been known for some time.

jimmi_the_dalek says: August 20, 2013 at 3:42 am
” I have just read through the whole thread again and he pointed this out on Aug 12 at 2:45 am”

Wow – I wasn’t even being attention to this sub-topic then. Stokes is sharp. I note also that we’ve wandered some way from Prof Salby’s hypothesis. I’ve seen the videos but is there a transcript handy? I’m curious how much Prof Salby’s ideas correspond with some of those we’ve seen on the thread.

CO2 is apparently so scarce that the excess amounts produced by fossil fuel activity just effectively disappear, quickly sequestered in the natural environment by increased botanic activity. The fact that there is no apparent daily CO2 signature even at the CO2 urban source provides a further insight into the complexity of this question.

The uptake by plants is calculated from the difference in O2 use between fossil fuels and plants. Of the ~9 GtC/yr emitted by humans, the whole biosphere sequesters ~1 gtC/yr, while the back and forth release and uptake of vegetation over the seasons is ~60 GtC. Thus far larger than the human emissions, but far lower in net uptake:http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

I’m curious how much Prof Salby’s ideas correspond with some of those we’ve seen on the thread.

Salby provides new information on effects of soil moisture. Other than that, his work repeats findings which I have repeatedly explained in this thread and that are in one of our earlier reports
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
.
Richard

– the 13C/12C ratio decline maybe from vegetation decay, but that is negated by the oxygen balance.
– Salby integrates the short term temp/CO2 variability against an arbitrary baseline, as Bart did.
– Salby calculates a theoretical diffusion of CO2 in ice cores to fit his theory (Bart simply refutes ice cores), but there is no such diffusion, neither theoretical (90% of the time CO2 levels would be negative!), nor practical (that would smooth out the interglacial peaks more and more for each 100 kyr back in time, but there is no measurable smooting).

The point is that even in urban environments where most fossil fuels are burned, the daily CO2 signature is overwhelmingly natural – the urban CO2 peaks do not occur at morning and evening rush hours as one might expect if the primary driver was humanmade; the urban CO2 peaks occur in the middle of the night, and are lowest during the day, due to urban plant photosynthesis.

This evidence would be overcome by evidence that the observations in Salt Lake City are unique or atypical.

– the 13C/12C ratio decline maybe from vegetation decay, but that is negated by the oxygen balance.

That “negation” only true if you assume the oxygen balance is independent of variations in forest fires. It may be, but your argument is moot.

You say

– Salby integrates the short term temp/CO2 variability against an arbitrary baseline, as Bart did.

Yes, and we have discussed such assumption in this thread.

You say

– Salby calculates a theoretical diffusion of CO2 in ice cores to fit his theory

Not only the ice cores, also in the firn in the years prior to sealing of the ice. Mixing of gases in the firn (i.e. a material with open porosity open to the atmosphere) is certain to occur as weather varies atmospheric pressure so pumps air in-and-out the firn.

You (and others) make the theoretical assumption that bubbles in the ice act as containers for ice because they are sealed. But the bubbles are not closed containers because the ice is permeated by liquid water that differentially dissolves gases.

Salby and you may be right or wrong. Data to falsify either of your analysis is inconclusive.

The “isolate” function is basically a high pass filter. His plot shows that the variational parts of CO2 generally lag the temperature by 90 degrees in phase (1/4 wavelength for the ups and downs). As we have seen in general, the SH data generally match the relationship better, especially in the early era.

This is all consistent with the dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq) relationship. He has stripped out the lower frequency linear trends and quadratic components. The quadratic component is accounted for by the gain “k”, which also accounts for the variational match and so is independently corroborated. Integrating the human rate of emissions also begets a quadratic component but, as this is already accounted for by the independently corroborated “k” in the temperature model, there is no, or at least very little, room for it. That is why human inputs cannot have a significant impact.

People who are not familiar with control systems seem to find it exotic and unlikely that nature can pass through the natural variation but be largely unaffected by the human input. However, this is actually fairly common control action. Far, far less exotic and unlikely than nature picking and choosing which parts of the temperature relationship it will keep and which it will dismiss to make way for the human input. Pace Ferdinand’s continued insistence, the latter is really not physically possible.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:34 am

…but the increase over the past decades doesn’t follow temperature…”

Absurd. Of course it does.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:41 am

jimmi, I assure you I am extremely adept at this kind of stuff and know precisely what I have done. I am not hanging my hat on the linear term in the overall concentration.

Let me repeat: I am not hanging my hat on the linear term in the overall concentration. You keep saying this, and I keep explaining it is not so, and then you tell me again.

I am hanging my hat on the match between the variations and the quadratic terms. The match with the quadratic term, which preciesly arises when you match the variations, is what rules out human inputs.

richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2013 at 2:33 am

“That clearly IS your basic assumption because – as I have told you in the past and jimmi_the_dalek has repeatedly said in this thread – you have an unaccounted linear term.”

No, that IS NOT my basic assumption. That is the blind alley Ferdinand keeps trying to push me into. The linear term is due simply to the equilibrium temperature. There has to be an equilibrium baseline. There is certainly no reason it should be the same baseline as has been chosen for the temperature anomalies.

But, that baseline temperature is set by external conditions, not just the change in temperature. It can be set, e.g., by the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters.

For determining human attribution, it does not matter. The question is moot. The independently corroborated sensitivity or scale factor “k” as in my model above prohibits human input from being significant, because it produces a quadratic term in the overall concentration, and that quadratic term matches the quadratic term, the curvature, in the measured CO2 record. Adding in human inputs to any level of significance would cause a mismatch with the quadratic component. Hence, human inputs are insignificant, QED.

Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 2:37 am

Why do you continue to insist on broadcasting your cluelessness?

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 20, 2013 at 3:09 am

“Temperature variations only fit the fast variability in CO2 rate of change, but don’t fit the trend, except by using an arbitrary offset…”

Why is it so hard for you people to understand??? A change in the linear portion STILL DOES NOT MAKE ROOM FOR HUMAN INPUTS!!! There is a quadratic factor which is necessarily produced by the human inputs BUT WHICH IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP!!!

People… look at the plot again. The value of the scale factor is 0.3. That scale factor matches the variations AND the trend. When you integrate this time series, you get attenuation of the variation, and a quadratic term due to the linear trend in the derivative, which matches the quadratic term in measured concentration.

It does not matter that I also have a constant offset in my model for the rate of change of CO2 which could be varied to make way for other processes. Human inputs are not a constant-in-rate process!!!

There is another comment hung up in the queue by multiple links. When you have a chance, read it again and again until it comes through. For future inquiries to Bart, refer back to my post which will appear at August 20, 2013 at 10:12 am. That post lays out the case as simply and straightforwardly as I can manage.

The linear trend everyone seems fixated upon does not matter. The effect of human inputs is already discounted to insignificance by the quadratic component in overall concentration, which is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.

This is a subtle clue, like one of those seemingly minor details storied detectives latch onto to solve the case. But, it absolutely absolves humanity of the crime for which it has been indicted.

Nyq Only says:August 20, 2013 at 2:37 am
“Why do you continue to insist on broadcasting your cluelessness?”

Why do you find my messages so threatening? If I’m in error you should be able to explain my error – if not for me then for the others who seem to think I’m correct and for the people who have pointed out the same issue prior?

If your grasp of mathematics is so much better than mine it should be easy for you to demonstrate to all and sundry the misguided thinking of a silly warmist.

I do have disagreement about the interpretation of your analysis. But it seems I have failed to explain my view adequately for you to understand it. I will try to do better here.

Your post at August 20, 2013 at 9:56 am quotes my having said to you at August 20, 2013 at 2:33 am concerning the linear term in your equation

That clearly IS your basic assumption because – as I have told you in the past and jimmi_the_dalek has repeatedly said in this thread – you have an unaccounted linear term

I had repeatedly stated that “basic assumption” including in my post you are replying. It is this

Bart’s basic assumption is that “bulk of the increase” is related to the long-term trend in the global temperature which is recovery from the LIA (and cannot be an anthropogenic effect).

Your response –which I am answering – says in total

No, that IS NOT my basic assumption. That is the blind alley Ferdinand keeps trying to push me into. The linear term is due simply to the equilibrium temperature. There has to be an equilibrium baseline. There is certainly no reason it should be the same baseline as has been chosen for the temperature anomalies.

But, that baseline temperature is set by external conditions, not just the change in temperature. It can be set, e.g., by the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters.

For determining human attribution, it does not matter. The question is moot. The independently corroborated sensitivity or scale factor “k” as in my model above prohibits human input from being significant, because it produces a quadratic term in the overall concentration, and that quadratic term matches the quadratic term, the curvature, in the measured CO2 record. Adding in human inputs to any level of significance would cause a mismatch with the quadratic component. Hence, human inputs are insignificant, QED.

Sorry, but in assessing the “human attribution” it DOES “matter”, it is not “moot”, and it is not a “blind alley”. Importantly, there is no relevance to whether it is Ferdinand or anyone else who makes the point (you probably remember getting upset with me on a WUWT thread when I made the point long ago).

Please remember that the hypothesis is yours so it is your responsibility to promote it. Others only have a duty to try to find fault with it. And your analysis is sufficiently sound that people are trying to find fault with it: that is a compliment to your work.

Having swept that dross into a corner, I now deal with the revealed floor.

As you say

But, that baseline temperature is set by external conditions, not just the change in temperature. It can be set, e.g., by the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters.

OK. I get that. Indeed, it is a rephrasing of our conclusion published 8 years ago and which I have repeatedly reported in this thread; i.e.
something has changed the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle.

But, in the context of your analysis, the known change is the temperature rise which is recovery from the LIA: i.e. a natural temperature rise. Your analysis shows that the CO2 changes other than “that baseline” are induced by temperature and therefore – at this stage – there is no reason to introduce anything additional to temperature change. However, you do need to mention the possibility of other effects (e.g. the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters) being responsible for the rising “baseline temperature”.

However, people keep saying that the rising “baseline” need not be a change to the equilibrium state but could be effect of the “human emission”.

Your reply to that says

The independently corroborated sensitivity or scale factor “k” as in my model above prohibits human input from being significant, because it produces a quadratic term in the overall concentration, and that quadratic term matches the quadratic term, the curvature, in the measured CO2 record. Adding in human inputs to any level of significance would cause a mismatch with the quadratic component. Hence, human inputs are insignificant.

OK. Show me the maths which demonstrates
(a) the human emission prevents the quadratic form of the curve, and
(b) the rising “baseline” is not effect of the anthropogenic emission.
Do that and you will be applying a push which may force me off my ‘fence’ onto your ‘side’. But merely saying the linear term cannot be effect of the anthropogenic emission is merely arm-waving.

I hope this response clarifies our disagreement and is helpful to you.

Bart:
“People… look at the plot again. The value of the scale factor is 0.3. That scale factor matches the variations AND the trend. When you integrate this time series, you get attenuation of the variation, and a quadratic term due to the linear trend in the derivative, which matches the quadratic term in measured concentration.”

Sure if you integrate the temperature series and ALSO ADD some roughly linear growth of the same scale as the roughly linear growth in CO2 (to take account of the steady growth) then you’ll get a reasonable match. How could you not?
[Integral of scaled temperature + linear growth in CO2] is going to look to look an awful lot like [linear growth in CO2]
Integral of appropriately scaled graph of Beethoven’s ninth + linear growth in CO2 will also look an awful lot like the linear growth in CO2.

OK. Show me the maths which demonstrates
(a) the human emission prevents the quadratic form of the curve, and
(b) the rising “baseline” is not effect of the anthropogenic emission.

(a) It does not prevent it, it would add to it.

The observed curvature is a specific amount. When I integrate the temperature relationship, I obtain that specific amount. The term in the temperature relationship which is responsible for that match is the scale factor “k”. The value of “k” which produces the appropriate integrated curvature is the same value of k which matches all the variation in the rate of change of CO2.

That is why I say this specific value of “k” is independently corroborated. It matches both the trend in rate of change, and the variation in rate of change of CO2.

So, my quadratic factor, my curvature, is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. If I now attempt to add in some affine function of human emissions, I will increase that curvature beyond the level which is observed.

(b) the rising “baseline” is a constant in the rate of change for at least the past 55 years. Human inputs have not been constant over that time interval.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that the passing through of overwhelmingly large natural changes along with the attenuation of human inputs is a very conventional control action. It is how one expects a natural feedback system to behave. The alternative, that the temperature relationship is effectively high pass filtered while the human inputs account for the low frequency behavior, such as Ferdinand suggests, is very exotic and unnatural, the more so because such activity would leave telltale signs of phase distortion between the temperature and the rate of change of CO2, and such behavior is not observed.

How do we construct this? Smooth CO2, and plot the derivative (chucking out the roughly linear trend), match up temperature by using a scale and offset then find the derivative (the offset then becomes a linear trend – although note that it had no notable relation with temperature) and then I plonked on another offset to account for the baseline of the CO2 emissions.

OK. I understand those arguments which explain your interpretation of “the maths” you have conducted. Thankyou.

But I asked you to “show me the maths”. Are they somewhere you can link to?
This would enable I and others to try to assess them with a view to finding other ways to develop them intended to find alternative results to your model (i.e. equation) which you are defending.

Bart says: August 20, 2013 at 11:31 am “You see? You hop, skip, and jump over my points, construct your own straw man of what I have said, then attempt to shoot it down. You’re not even wrong because you are not even addressing my argument.”

So if you don’t address my argument then does that imply that you also are “not even wrong”? I guess so. As for hopping and skipping – well I guess I am trying to cut to the chase. However I do replicate your results and when I do I can see what I am doing and I can see what I am doing has the issues I’m pointing out.
Now as apparently I’m some clueless idiot, blinded by dogma yadda yadda etc you should easily be able to show where I’m going wrong. Genuinely, I’d like to know.

You’re an idiot. Go back and reread the argument again and again until you get some vague sense of what it is.

richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:55 am

I’m not sure exactly what you mean. I have shown my math model here. Nick Stokes and I had the conversation here in which I explained why adding in an arbitrary trend in rate, such as one might get from human inputs, is a worse fit than the temperature relationship.

I have explained why Nyq Only’s attempt to establish phase delay from a plot of absolute CO2 and temperature was foolish and wrong here. That an integration induces a phase of -90 deg with an amplitude response of 1/(2*pi*f), where f is frequency, is common knowledge.

“(are you listening, Nyq?)”
Sure but I’m such an idiot that I got my head stuck in a box of cereal whilst trying to eat breakfast in the middle of the night. It wouldn’t be so bad but then I tried to pour milk into it. I have Captain Crunch in my ears now. Hopefully somebody will help me soon.

And your calculations of O2 change assumed to be a result of plant growth are trumped by the empirical data Allan MacRae provided (empirical data always trumps theory).

I do agree that human emissions are small compared to the diurnal change of CO2 by vegetation. But that says next to nothing about the influence of these changes over the whole globe over a full seasonal cycle. That can be calculated from the oxygen use or production by the whole biosphere. That is land and seaplants, bacteria, insects and animals. That includes vegetation growth and decay and forest fires, droughts and floods… The observed data show a net O2 production by the biosphere, which is the result of ~1 GtC/year uptake as CO2.
Thus the biosphere doesn’t take all human induced CO2 away in the next available tree. Far from it…

About Salby and ice cores:

Not only the ice cores, also in the firn in the years prior to sealing of the ice. Mixing of gases in the firn (i.e. a material with open porosity open to the atmosphere) is certain to occur as weather varies atmospheric pressure so pumps air in-and-out the firn.

The diffusion in firn is well known and can be calculated, as that is a matter of pores diameter, which is reverse proportional to firn densitiy. That physical “model” is confirmed by direct measurements top-down in firn at Law Dome, published in 1996 by Etheridge e.a.
But Salby did go a step further:
According to his calculation (model?), the measurements in ice of 100 kyr old might be a factor 10 too low, thus the measured 300 ppmv during the Eemian might have been 3000 ppmv. But then there is a problem: ice cores may smooth out the differences by diffusion (for which is no proof), but that doesn’t change the average over the period of resolution. As 90% of the time the earth is in a glacial state, to give an average of ~200 ppmv, the glacials should be below zero CO2…

You (and others) make the theoretical assumption that bubbles in the ice act as containers for ice because they are sealed. But the bubbles are not closed containers because the ice is permeated by liquid water that differentially dissolves gases.

Ice at -20°C has a liquid-like layer of unordered watermolecules at the ice-air border and virtually none at the crystal borders, except for dust/salt inclusions. But nevertheless there were attempts to calculate a possible diffusion in the Siple Dome ice core from increased CO2 levels near a remelt layer. That did give a broadening of the resolution at mid-depth from 20 to 22 years and at full depth to 40 years. That is all.
For the much colder (-40°C) Vorstok and Dome C ice cores that is not measurable. If there was some substantial migration, that would result in a flattening of the CO2/temperature ratio for each interglacial back in time, each some 100 kyr apart.

Why is it so hard for you people to understand??? A change in the linear portion STILL DOES NOT MAKE ROOM FOR HUMAN INPUTS!!! There is a quadratic factor which is necessarily produced by the human inputs BUT WHICH IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP!!!

No reason to shout…
In your assumption of what happens in nature, there is no place for human emissions. But that is only the result of curve fitting, which matches the SH temperature anomalies (thus there should be your upwelling source?), but the increase is in the NH first, not in the SH…
Further, that should lead to an increase of over 100 ppmv/°C, completely out of range for what nature shows over seasons, a few years and multi-decades to multi-millennia. Moreover, according to some more assumptions, the increase in the atmosphere has not the slightest impact on the CO2 releases from the oceans, neither on the sinks in polar waters or in vegetation, no impact on the 13C/12C or 14C/12C ratio’s, neither on the turnover/residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere…

In my assumption of what happens in nature, there is full room for human emissions (around 50%) and a litttle room for the temperature increase: some 4.5 ppmv/°C over the past 5 decades, completely in line with the 5 ppmv/°C over the seasons, 4-5 ppmv/°C over a few years (Pinatubo, El Niño) and 8 ppmv/°C over multi-decades to multi-millennia. It fits the isotope ratio’s, the oxygen balance, the residence time and I don’t know more to mention…

Bart
“The value of k is set. The value of a1 is set. So, the curvature k*a1 is set, and it matches observations.”

“k and a1 are not arbitrary. We have no room for alpha1 to add in to any level of significance.”

This is arm-waving. You have nothing quantitative to back it up. You should at very least determine k by regression, so you would have error estimates. Then you should test your claims about α1. Your talk about level of significance is just hot air.

Your argument comes down to saying that a second derivative of CO2 can predict the slope of the temperature. This is where your cherry-picking of the SH stands out. In that case it works not too badly. For SST, or global SAT, it is not good at all. It is obscured because you compare by eye on a differentiated plot – ie one which greatly emphasises short term fit vs trend failings.

And it all comes unstuck when you do try to demonstrate a prediction in the integrated domain. You can’t do better than simple polynomial regression.

k is poorly determined. For example, you use 0.3 to show a SH fit, 0.2 for global. When I pointed out the bad performance of your global approx, you said that it hadn’t been optimised. But I did that, regressing in the undifferentiated domain. The optimal value of k came down to nearly 0.1, vs your 0.2. It is not well determined at all. The reason it came down is that, when trying to meet a LS in a domain that had not been aggressively high-pass filtered, it sacrificed HF fit to get the trend right.

You keep making this bizarre claim. It isn’t cherry picking – that’s where the action is, as indicated by the coherence of the fit. This is like me saying that child molestation by adults is correlated with sexual abuse which the perpetrators, themselves, suffered as children, and you demuring that children who become addicted to drugs don’t generally end up as child molesters.

This is a non-argument. It is irrelevant. There should be no more requirement for fitting every temperature set perfectly than there should be for matching the stock exchange indices.

“You can’t do better than simple polynomial regression.”

You cannot connect low order polynomials to the variations in the rate of CO2. You can do so with the temperature. Come ON Nick, what in the world are you thinking?

“The optimal value of k came down to…”

Optimal based on what criterion? You have no way to truly optimize this without knowledge of the autocorrelation. And, you don’t need to. You can see the goodness of the fit with your own eyes.

These data are not perfect. There is no one-to-one mapping. When you get a good fit which is consistent with commonly observed natural behavior, you know you’ve got it.

Look, just watch and see what happens. The human inputs are already diverging from the atmospheric concentration. The divergence will accelerate as temperatures stagnate and even decline. Before too many more years, you will know I am right.

My what a lot of comments. I will just comment on that of Bart 20th Aug 9:56 am where he is discussing the graph that dbstealey keeps showing.
“The “isolate” function is basically a high pass filter. His plot shows that the variational parts of CO2 generally lag the temperature by 90 degrees in phase (1/4 wavelength for the ups and downs)”

Yes, precisely. Though I prefer WFT’s description that ‘isolate’ subtracts the mean and leaves the noise, as that gives a better idea of what has been done. But no matter what it is called Bart agrees that the graph shows that the variational parts (a.k.a. ‘noise’) of the CO2 growth lags temperature, and of course since the low frequency part (a.k.a. the trend)has been omitted it follows that nothing has been said about whether this part follows, leads, or has no connection whatsoever to the temperature. Yet this type of graph is used to support the claim that CO2 lags temperature on all time scales (I am not going to wade back through this thread to see who claims that, but I know it has been claimed). So can we now take it that Bart agrees that this particular graph does not say anything at all except about the brief one or two year fluctuations that occur?

Bart also says “People who are not familiar with control systems seem to find it exotic”. I think part of the trouble is that Bart is so familiar with that, that he thinks that everything can be analysed in those terms.

At some stage I point out that physics was quantitative, not purely qualitative. So here (if it works) is WFT with the CO2 curve (12 month average), the linear trend, the CO2 curve subjected to an isolate calculation (subtract the mean to leave the noise) and the first derivative of the CO2 curve.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/trend:60/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/isolate:60/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative
They are plotted on the same graph to make a point – the CO2 curve and its trend are up the top, and on the same scale the ‘isolate’ curve, and the derivative curve are hardly distinct from zero. So why exactly are we spending so much time analysing the residuals and ignoring the main data?

“So can we now take it that Bart agrees that this particular graph does not say anything at all except about the brief one or two year fluctuations that occur?”

It’s not my graph. That is why I do not present it. I favor one such as this, which shows that the trends match up pretty closely, too. When the derivative is in phase, or coincident if you prefer, with the temperature, then it is a given that absolute CO2 lags temperature, as integrating the derivative imparts an inherent 90 degree phase lag.

The low frequencies flow into the high frequencies smoothly, without any apparent phase distortion. This is why Ferdinand’s idea that the temperature is responsible for short term behavior, but human inputs are for the long term, is untenable.

“I think part of the trouble is that Bart is so familiar with that, that he thinks that everything can be analysed in those terms.”

Everything can. It is quite a general discipline.

“So why exactly are we spending so much time analysing the residuals and ignoring the main data?”

Because the residuals indicate what driving force is responsible for at least the great majority of increasing CO2 concentration. And, what they indicate is that humans are not responsible.

Bart: “You keep making this bizarre claim. It isn’t cherry picking – that’s where the action is, as indicated by the coherence of the fit.”

Perhaps but it does change the meaning of the relationship you are showing. You are demonstrating a relationship between CO2 and the southern hemisphere concentration. That in itself is an interesting claim but obviously not the same claim as a relationship between global temperature and CO2.

Firstly, I considered your logic and it seems sound. Alternative models may be possible, but I did not develop any because my purpose was – as I said – to evaluate your analysis.

Then I put your model into a spread sheet and – as I said I would – I started to play with it by adjusting variables. This is the model I assessed
CO2 = A00+r*A0+C0 + (k*a0+d0+r*alpha0)*t + 0.5*(k*a1+r*alpha1)*t^2 + (h(t)+r*m(t))

It seems that, as you said, you have provided the best fit by adopting the values for parameters which you have adopted. However, in itself that is merely a curve-fitting exercise because your model has 6 possible variables (remember Neuman’s elephant).

It would require all your variables to have defined physical meanings which can be empirically checked for your model to be completely grounded in reality.

And I do not understand your statement that

k and a1 are not arbitrary.

I can vary them on my spreadsheet and they do not represent any physical parameter that I can determine. What are they in terms of physical reality?

You say

b0 = k*a0 + d0
b1 = k*a1
g(t) = k*f(t)

It is because the same value of k scales a1 to b1 as well as f(t) to g(t) that we have corroboration of k.

I fail to understand what you are saying there, too.

Since the values of a0, d0, a1 and b1 are arbitrary it seems to be mere curve fitting to find a relationship between them.

In other words, I fail to see how your model represents physical reality except as mere curve fitting because it includes arbitrary and adjustable non-physical terms.

And, importantly, if your model does not represent physical reality then it cannot be used as a valid tool to deduce anything about physical reality.

Please tell me what I am missing here because it seems very likely that I have failed to understand something important.

And I request that you understand I am trying to ‘get to grips’ with what you are claiming. If you think I am being unusually harsh with you then I suggest you ask Ferdinand about some of my disagreements with him in the past.

Your entire piece of maths amounts to circular argument. You write down some forms for T and dCO2/dt, do some manipulation involving a trivial integration, then produce an anthropogenic term and say it cannot be added because the result is already fixed. But you have not specified the possible physical origins of the parameters in your equations.

So lets just add some qualifications.

You are really using temperature anomalies rather than temperature, but that’s no big deal,
anomaly = (T-a0) = a1.t + f(t)
(not a very good approximation, but that’s secondary). The important point is that since you are going to use the experimental data, you have to allow for the possibility that a1 is determined by a mixture of natural and anthropogenic causes in proportions which are unclear.

Then with dCO2/dt = b0 + b1.t + g(t) you have to recognise that b0 and b1 may (or may not ) have been influenced by human input, because you are using the experimental data, which may include anthropogenic effects – I mean that’s the question are looking at isn’t it – so you cannot assume implicitly that there is no contribution from the start and then attempt to add it in later.

So you do your integration, and get an expression,

CO2 = b0.t +(1/2)b1. t^2 + higher terms +integration constant
(yes that is all it is)
to which I am compelled to ask, so what? Every single term has “constants” to which you have to add the qualification “may contain anthropogenic factors”. What have you proved?

I can vary them on my spreadsheet and they do not represent any physical parameter that I can determine. What are they in terms of physical reality?”

The variables a0, a1, b0 and b1 are fixed by the observations, as are the variations f(t) amd g(t). You can determine them by analyzing the plots of T and dCO2/dt.

The variable k is fixed by the necessity that b1 = k*a1 and g(t) = k*f(t) for affine similarity. The remarkable properties are that the variational terms f(t) and g(t) are essentially scale similar in the first place, and that there exists a value of k for which both equations are satisfied (within reasonable margins of error).

“If you think I am being unusually harsh…”

No, not at all. I appreciate your trying to “get to grips” (we generally use the phrase “come to grips”, at least in the US) with what I am saying. I try to limit my frustrations to when people are being either abusive or intentionally obtuse.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 21, 2013 at 7:09 am

“…you have to allow for the possibility that a1 is determined by a mixture of natural and anthropogenic causes in proportions which are unclear…you have to recognise that b0 and b1 may (or may not ) have been influenced by human input…
“

No, b0, b1, and a1 are merely observational parameters. You can estimate them directly from the plots. The only assumption I am making is that the remarkable affine similarity between the two series, dCO2/dt and T, is no accident, and indicates a causal relationship. Based on the quality of the fit, I find that reasoning to be on solid ground.

That the arrow of causality flows from temperature to CO2 is settled by the fact that assuming temperatures respond to the rate of change of CO2 leads to absurd conclusions, such as that we could increase CO2 arbitrarily, and the temperature would only respond while we were increasing it, and revert to its former equilibrium level when we reached steady state at an arbitrary level. Changes in temperature would lead the level of absolute CO2 by 90 degrees in phase. This is untenable in that the effect would precede the cause.

“But you have not specified the possible physical origins of the parameters in your equations.”

Actually, I have, in previous posts. There are no doubt other possibilities, but my hypothesis is that upwelling CO2 rich waters constitute a pumping action of CO2 into the atmosphere. This pumping action is modulated by temperatures, and there is some equilibrium level of temperatures for which the pumping action will cease. This leads directly to an equation of the form

where tau is a time constant, and H is the rate of human inputs. In this system, sinks are represented by the time constant tau. If tau is “short” (sinks action is powerful), then H will be severely attenuated, not effectively integrated, and CO2 will track CO2eq. This is a fairly ordinary and common-type control action.

There are no doubt other possibilities, but my hypothesis is that upwelling CO2 rich waters constitute a pumping action of CO2 into the atmosphere. This pumping action is modulated by temperatures, and there is some equilibrium level of temperatures for which the pumping action will cease.

As said many times before, the hypothesis of a sustained increase of CO2 from upwelling rich waters combined with the temperature increase is physically impossible, because it violates some basic laws and about all available observations.

A sustained increase in temperature of 1 K induces an increase of CO2 influx of the oceans (about 5% of the current influx from the equatorial upwelling places) and a decrease in outflux into the deep oceans at the cold polar sink places (again about 5%). That gives an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will give the opposite reaction: a decrease in influx and an increase of outflux. According to Henry’s law, an increase of ~16 ppmv in the atmosphere fully compensates for 1 K temperature increase, restoring the fluxes of before the increase.

Thus a sustained temperature increase doesn’t lead to a sustained extra influx of CO2 in the atmosphere, but leads to a assymptotic increase with a decay rate of a few years.

Any increase in CO2 from upwelling (either quantity or concentration) will show the same behaviour, except if the CO2 concentration at the sink places would have increased with 140 ppmv in the far past (double the recent increase), for which there is not the slightest indication.
But even if that was the case, then the cause of the recent increase would be the increased upwelling and temperature has only the 16 ppmv extra as effect. Thus anyway, there is no sustained effect from a sustained difference in temperature and the correlation found (for the trend, not for the short term variability) is pure coincidence…

About the possibility of an increase in (deep) ocean upwelling:
– An increase of deep ocean upwelling will give an increase of the 13C/12C ratio in the current atmosphere (including the change in isotopic ratio between ocean and atmosphere). Human emissions give a strong decrease. As from a process viewpoint the near 3 times increase of human emissions and a near 3 times net sink rate since 1960 must be mimicked by a near 3 times increase of natural carbon circulation, that would give following trend in d13C since 1960:
– Such an increase in throughput would reduce the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere again with a near threefold, for which there is no evidence, to the contrary, it seems that the residence time slightly increased over recent decades…

“As said many times before, the hypothesis of a sustained increase of CO2 from upwelling rich waters combined with the temperature increase is physically impossible, because it violates some basic laws and about all available observations.”

This is mere assertion on your part, and is not tenable. If upwelling waters continually pump CO2 into the system, then the waters will trend upward in CO2 content. Part of that upward trend will outgas to the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentration will keep rising as the CO2 rich waters diffuse into the surface system over time.

“An increase of deep ocean upwelling will give an increase of the 13C/12C ratio in the current atmosphere…”

Bart: d0 was arbitrary, so the linear trend term alpha0 does not negate the possibility of significant human influence (are you listening, Nyq?)

Thanks for the maths. Some questions if I may just to clarify what you are saying. There seems to be two ways of reading your final statements there:
1. there is room for in the linear trend term (and constant term) for human influence but not in the other two. (i.e. you are leaving open the possibility of human influence)
or
2. there appears to be room in the linear trend term for human influence but by examination of the other terms that human influence can be dismissed (i.e. you are saying there cannot be any human influence of any significance)

Putting that issue aside you suggest the quadratic term cannot be human influenced. Hence it must be some natural phenomenon. What is your physical interpretation of that term?

You presented an argument earlier regarding the 90 degree phase shift of an integral to show that CO2 must lag temperature. I was wondering if you could sketch out the implications of that argument for the linear and quadratic terms of your model. Was your argument primarily pertaining to g(t) and f(t) in your model?

GregM says: August 21, 2013 at 8:49 am
“Tried that. No similarity whatsoever. What is your point?”
Not much similarity in the bumps and wobbles and some similarity in the linear trend. It is the linear trend in CO2 that is the issue that needs explaining. Everybody seems to agree that temperature does drive CO2 (or common parameters drive both) at shorter time periods.
There are various methods by which we can show remove or add arbitrarily linear trends to graphs. If we use your method we can add a positive slope to some random noise so that it rises in tune with CO2 over longer time scales. We could tweak the number to get a better match. The rise will be there because we put it there (in a graph sense).

I don’t think we have enough info on the variational part of the anthropogenic input. It may be small enough not to make a big dent either way.

But, my position is door #2. It is not that “…the quadratic term cannot be human influenced.” It could but, as the temperature relationship already accounts for it, there is no more room for significant human influence to add to it. Because the temperature influence on this term is corroborated by the match between the variations in temperature and the rate of change of CO2, the dominance of the temperature dependent impact is confirmed.

“What is your physical interpretation of that term?”

I believe it is simply the integrated trend in temperature. There is a flow of CO2 being pumped into the surface system which, if temperatures were constant, would be at a more-or-less steady rate. But, because the temperatures have been increasing, the input rate has been increasing, too. That accumulated increase begets a quadratic curvature in the absolute atmospheric concentration.

“I was wondering if you could sketch out the implications of that argument for the linear and quadratic terms of your model. Was your argument primarily pertaining to g(t) and f(t) in your model?”

Consider a sinusoid

x(t) = A*sin(w*t)/w

If w is “small”, over a finite interval, this approaches

x(t) := A*t

the integral of which is

y(t) := 0.5*A*t^2

The integral, considered as a network device, has a gain of 1/w and a phase shift of – 90 degrees, so the true integral of x(t) is

y(t) = A*(sin(w*t – pi/2) – sin(-pi/2))/w^2 = A*(1-cos(w*t))/w^2

Of course, we could have gotten this result with the usual formulas for integration of trig functions, but this shows how the integral can be represented as a frequency dependent gain and a phase shift of -pi/2 radians which is, of course, -90 degrees.

In the limit as w approaches zero, that becomes

y(t) := A*((w*t)^2/2)/w^2 = 0.5*A*t^2

as before. Hopefully, that elementary example shows how the phase shift manifests itself in the lower frequency regime.

This is mere assertion on your part, and is not tenable. If upwelling waters continually pump CO2 into the system, then the waters will trend upward in CO2 content. Part of that upward trend will outgas to the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentration will keep rising as the CO2 rich waters diffuse into the surface system over time.

Maybe, maybe not. The increase of 70 ppmv CO2 over the past 50 years needs an increase of 140 ppmv at the downwelling side 800-1200 years ago, without any mixing in of the rest of the deep oceans. But that is not the point.

The point is that a sustained increase in temperature, whatever the changes in upwelling might be, doesn’t give a sustained extra influx of CO2 in the atmosphere, only 16 ppmv/K extra at maximum with a short decay rate towards the result of the changes in upwelling (or the changes caused by the human emissions or whatever other source…).

The ratio argument is full of holes. It is mere speculation.

You have obviously not read the rest of the discussion. Dr. Spencer was wrong on that point. And you may explain to me how outgassing of the deep oceans (at 0 to +1 per mil d13C) or the mixing in of surface waters (at +1 to +5 per mil) may DEcrease the d13C of the atmosphere at -8 per mil (including the water-air border fractionation):
or over the period 1978-2002 (for the atmosphere, need to make an update for the more recent years):
Again, the SH lags the NH, which points to a source of low 13C in the NH, as the CO2 levels in the SH also lag the increase in the NH. Thus the source can’t be from the high 13C CO2 emissions out of the oceanic upwelling places in the SH…

“The point is that a sustained increase in temperature, whatever the changes in upwelling might be, doesn’t give a sustained extra influx of CO2 in the atmosphere…”

Without conceding your calculation, which I believe is based on questionable ice core data, this isn’t what I am claiming anyway. I am not claiming the atmospheric increase is temperature driven, but rather temperature dependent.

“Dr. Spencer was wrong on that point. “

Says you.

“And you may explain to me…”

It is speculation, Ferdinand. It is a storyline. A narrative. It may sound plausible to you, but plausibility is not proof. There are any number of possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Just because you cannot think of any does not mean the subject is closed.

“No, b0, b1, and a1 are merely observational parameters. You can estimate them directly from the plots. ”
Precisely!
From the plots of experimental data! Which may (or may not) contain human induced components, and thus cannot be used to prove that they do (or do not)

In Gail Combs post of August 20, 2013 at 1:13am she correctly states that there are many natural sources of atmospheric CO2 that are far greater than the humanmade CO2 component.

Yet the global warming alarmists continue to blame humankind for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since systematic measurements began circa 1958, and also blame humankind for the minor global warming observed from ~1975 to ~2000
– notwithstanding the fact that we do not have accurate measurements of pre-1958 atmospheric CO2 measurements and there is considerable contradictory evidence in the pre-1958 CO2 data;
– and notwithstanding that the atmospheric CO2 data signature is overwhelmingly natural at annual, seasonal and daily time scales, even in urban environments near the sources of humanmade CO2;
– and notwithstanding that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature al all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record; [Note to Warmists: The future CANNOT cause the past.]
– and notwithstanding that atmospheric CO2 continues to increase but global warming ceased about 10-20 years ago, and Earth may now be entering a natural global cooling period;
– and notwithstanding that atmospheric CO2 increased from 1940 to 1975 during a previous period of global cooling;
– and notwithstanding that the global warming alarmists have failed in every major scientific prediction they have attempted; Contrary to IPCC projections, there has been NO net global warming for 10-20 years, and no evidence of wilder weather, more hurricanes, or tornados. “Green energy“ technologies have failed to produce significant amounts of useful net energy;
– and notwithstanding that the leading proponents of global warming alarmism have been proven in the Climategate emails to be guilty of reprehensible behaviour including scientific misrepresentation, vicious academic intimidation, and criminal misbehaviour. Warmist scientific and ethical failures included the Mann hokey stick, the Divergence Problem, Mike’s Nature Trick, Hide the Decline, the intimidation of the editors of scientific journals and the firing of skeptics from universities – a long history of thuggery.

Every dire prediction by the global warming alarmists has proven to be unsubstantiated and some of their conclusions and recommendations were clearly fraudulent, and yet our political leaders continue to pander to global warming hysteria and have squandered over a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on global warming nonsense.

All this real-word evidence fails to support the hypothesis of catastrophic humanmade global warming, and further suggests that global warming alarmism is destructive irrational cult hysteria, lacking both ethics and scientific merit.

Without conceding your calculation, which I believe is based on questionable ice core data, this isn’t what I am claiming anyway. I am not claiming the atmospheric increase is temperature driven, but rather temperature dependent.

Nothing to do with ice core data, but with basic process reactions: whatever the increase in upwelling (mass and/or concentration), an increase in temperature of 1 K will increase the partial pressure of the ocean surface at the upwelling with ~16 microatm, thus the driving force, the partial pressure difference between ocean surface and atmosphere increases with 16 microatm. That will increase the outgassing. The opposite happens at the sink site: a decrease in uptake by the oceans. But as the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the opposite happens with the partial pressure differences. With an increase of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere, the effect of temperature on the outgassing and uptake is back to what it was before the increase of 1 K…

Just because you cannot think of any does not mean the subject is closed.
Several persons beside me have shown that Dr. Spencer was wrong on that item. In the case of d13C, the oceans simply can’t be a source of decreasing levels. Vegetation decay is the only alternative, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, not a source…

The variables a0, a1, b0 and b1 are fixed by the observations, as are the variations f(t) amd g(t). You can determine them by analyzing the plots of T and dCO2/dt.

I recognise that others have not understood the point you are making, and I am addressing what I understand you to be saying.

I understand you to be claiming those variables do not contain an anthropogenic proportion because
(a) your calculations indicate the “observations” ARE related to temperature
but
(b) the anthropogenic emission IS NOT related to temperature.

However, I conclude that your claim is a logical error.
I will try to spell this out.
1.
The natural emission and sequestration dwarf the anthropogenic emission.
2.
The natural emission and sequestration are affected by temperature.
3.
The variation from a linear trend in the anthropogenic emission is small.
4.
Therefore, observed variations in the observations will be dominated by variations in the natural emission and sequestration which are affected by temperature.
5.
Point 4 does NOT indicate there is no anthropogenic contribution to any of the variables: it probably indicates that the VARIATION in the anthropogenic emission is much smaller than the VARIATION in the natural emission (which is much the larger flux).

Anyway, that is how I see it.

Hence, I am disappointed. Both you and Ferdinand make good arguments which cannot be rejected. I had hoped that – after all these years – I would be able to ‘climb off the fence’ on to one side. And I cannot.

I see that the opponents of the non-anthropogenic change in atmospheric CO2 are still attacking the temperature change strawman. Again, it’s not the temparature change but temperature level (dCO2 = f(Ta)). Possible explanation is that the seasonal (annual) temperature cycle is pumping CO2 into/outa the Earth’s atmosphere (depending on the annualy averaged temperature). If the exchange coefficients during warming and cooling phases of the annual cycles are different, then CO2 doesn’t return to its starting point when one cycle is over, even if the temperature does.

Nature will conduct the experiment. With the cooling we should see a reduction in annual CO2 change, in spite of the rising ACO2. Since the continuous measurements started, dCO2 closely followed Ta and I don’t see why the behaviour should stop.

Bart starts from experimental data. The experimental data is from the real world, so it contains the results of anything which actually affects the answer. It is not a model.

But when Bart writes and equation like,
dCO2/dt = b0 + b1.t + higher order terms
he is using a (mathematical) model. As such it is only useful if the physical meaning of the terms is clear. Now Bart says (aug 20 at 12:35) that b0 and b1 are constants, but of course they are not. CO2 depends on many things – it may depend on temperature T, it may depend on the anthropogenic contribution A, the contribution from the biosphere B, input from volcanoes V, and probably other terms. So b0 is a function b0(T,A,B,V,etc), and so is b1(T,A,B,V,etc) where the etc is for all the terms not identified. Now at time t, b0 and b1 have particular values, but they are not constants, they are functions. You do not know the relative magnitude of the various terms, but they all have to be there in the functional dependence. You cannot a priori leave them out.

In the temperature record Bart writes,
T= a0 +a1.t + higher order terms
but again, a1 is not a constant. It must be a function of all the things that the temperature depends on, so that includes in sun, S, the CO2 concentration, natural cycles N in the ocean eg ENSO etc etc. So a1 is a function a1(S,CO2,N,etc etc). And actually it is more complicated because CO2 is itself a function. so a1 is really a functional A1[S,CO2(T),N, etc etc]. So now we have T depending on CO2 and CO2 depending on T i.e. there is a feedback, as of course there is in the real world.

Now Bart scales the curves with a parameter k and an offset d0 and writes
dCO2/dt =k.T +d0
and finds that for particular values of k and d0 the relationship holds quite well. Of course k and d0 are actually functions which depend on all the factors that b0 and b1 depend on.

Now he integrates his equation to get
CO2 = b0.t +(1/2)b1.t^2 + integration constant + higher order terms.
He writes it in a more complicated form, but really this is all there is.
Then as a final step he takes and expression for the anthropogenic factor, adds it to the above equation, and says that because it does not improve the fit, then the anthropogenic terms must be zero.

Major fallacy. Bart has started out by assuming that b0 and b1 are independent of A. In other words he has assumed what he is trying to prove. But obviously if there is a non-zero A, then it is already included in the actual values of b0 and b1. The reason that his adding his A term has no effect is not because it is zero, but because it is already there. Unfortunately there is no way to deconvolute the data to get the relative magnitudes of the various contributions by this approach. It quite literally says nothing about the magnitude of A. To get at that you have to approach from a different angle as Ferdinand has been doing.

If dCO2 is a function of Ta, why are there so many changes in function parameters: 10 ppmv/K/yr for the seasonal cycle, 5 ppmv/K/yr for interannual variations, 2 ppmv/K/yr for the recent 5 decades, 0.12 ppmv/K/yr for the MWP-LIA cooling and ultimately 0.002 ppmv/K/yr for a deglaciation…

If dCO2 is a function of dT, then life is much simpler: from seasons to glacials/interglacials, the factor changes from ~4 ppmv/K to 8 ppmv/K. The only outlier is the current period with >100 ppmv/K, which is highly probable not natural…

I concur. Gail has provided a nice list of info which I have bookmarked.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 3:35 am

You are arguing beside the point. If the surface waters have a continuous increase in partial pressure coming from upwelling waters, then the atmospheric concentration will also continuously increase.

richardscourtney says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:15 am

You seem to be missing the point that the trend in dCO2/dt is fully accounted for by the trend in temperature. Therefore, the contribution to the trend in dCO2/dt from human emissions must be small. If that component from human emissions is having little effect, then overall it must be having little effect.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:17 am

Jimmi, you are simply way off the mark. I regret that I cannot explain it to you more clearly. The coefficients are what they are, regardless of how they come about. Matching them to the phenomena which could produce them is then the goal. When you do that, you find anthropogenic forcing cannot be a major player.

I don’t know what more can be said. I have done my best to enlighten, but it appears many people are dug into their comfort zones, and are simply too resistant to the idea because of ingrained thought that we simply must be having an impact.

But, I am being proved right even as we speak. The emissions and measurements are diverging. Keep an eye on those variables. The reality will become all too apparent in the next few years.

You are arguing beside the point. If the surface waters have a continuous increase in partial pressure coming from upwelling waters, then the atmospheric concentration will also continuously increase.

That is right, if the upwelling increases over time, but that has nothing to do with a sustained difference in temperature. Independent of the upwelling, a temperature increase of 1 K gives an increase of ~16 microatm in the ocean surfce waters. That is what temperature does on the solubility of CO2. An extra increase of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere above the increase from the upwelling fully compensates for the temperature increase, that is Henry’s Law. Thus there may be a continuous increase caused by increasing upwelling, but that is only temporarely influenced by a temperature increase.

I hadn’t read your comment, but you repeat an obvious blunder made by the late Beck to include the Barrow data in his compilation without a quality check:

Scholander got more than a 100ppm swing at Barrow over a year’s time.

If you should have taken some time to look at the micro-Schollander method in use at Barrow in 1942, then you should have noticed that the accuracy of the instrument was +/- 150 ppmv.
That was not a problem for its purpose: measuring CO2 in exhaled air of the researchers (at around 20,000 ppmv). Big problem for measuring CO2 in ambient air: completely worthless.
Which is a pitty, as Barrow today is one of the “baseline” stations, showing a seasonal variation over a year of +/- 10 ppmv… Far from the 100 ppmv swings from an inaccurate device…

And please don’t use Glassman as your reference, he is a master in misinterpreting what others say:

So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement.

I don’t know what the laboratory does where you work, but I prefer that my regular blood tests (diabetic) are done by lab’s which intercalibrate their methods and equipment with proven standards. That is all what NOAA (that is NOT the IPCC) does: they deliver the standard gasmixtures that are used to calibrate the CO2 measuring equipment worldwide, besides that some other institutes (like Scripps) still use their own standards.
That has nothing to do with aligment of the records, as these still show local, seasonal and hemispheric differences.
So IF NOAA want to manipulate the data, they need to deliver standard gasmixtures which are different for different stations and all show a similar increase in the atmosphere, thus a standard that adapts itself to show an increase of ~0.005 ppmv/day…
Do you really think that Glassman is a reliable source of information?

You seem to be missing the point that the trend in dCO2/dt is fully accounted for by the trend in temperature. Therefore, the contribution to the trend in dCO2/dt from human emissions must be small. If that component from human emissions is having little effect, then overall it must be having little effect.

Oh, dear. NO!
You have COMPLETELY IGNORED MY POINT which was

1.
The natural emission and sequestration dwarf the anthropogenic emission.
2.
The natural emission and sequestration are affected by temperature.
3.
The variation from a linear trend in the anthropogenic emission is small.
4.
Therefore, observed variations in the observations will be dominated by variations in the natural emission and sequestration which are affected by temperature.
5.
Point 4 does NOT indicate there is no anthropogenic contribution to any of the variables: it probably indicates that the VARIATION in the anthropogenic emission is much smaller than the VARIATION in the natural emission (which is much the larger flux).

Please note that I am saying the variation in the anthropogenic emission is near-random around a linear trend but the variation in the natural emission and sequestration is affected by temperature.

Your response makes no mention of the variation in the data.

I would like what I have observed to be shown to be wrong.
I do not like what I have observed being ignored as not worthy of consideration.

That is incorrect. If there is a continuous inflow to the oceans, then the rate of its release into the atmosphere is going to be modulated by temperatures.

Only temporarely. If the temperature increases with 1 K, that gives an increase in pCO2 difference of 16 microatm above the pCO2 difference from the upwelling. That gives more CO2 influx, higher CO2 levels and a decreasing pressure difference, thus a reduced CO2 influx.
The same btw for the extra upwelling: if that is a constant extra inflow, that will be compensated sooner or later by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which reduces the inflow back to equilibrium.
Both are going assymptotic to a new level of CO2 in the atmosphere for a sustained increase of temperature and/or upwelling.

Bart:
I think at this stage the argument has certainly progressed but most of the same sticking points remain.
Returning to CO2 = c0 + (k*a0+d0)*t + 0.5*k*a1*t^2 + h(t)
c0 – essentially a baseline level of CO2 concentration. Probably not relevant or contentious in this discussion.
(k*a0+d0)*t – the term where the action is in terms of potential scope for anthropogenic influence on levels of CO2
0.5*k*a1*t^2 – I suspect most of us haven’t fully grasped the significance one way or another of this term. How close are the linear trends in dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly? How much scope is there their for values not found by observing the fit between dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly with appropriate scaling and offset.
h(t) – uncontroversial. Temperature at some level has some impact on CO2.

Numbers would help. I know you have given some but a summary would be useful. in particular the size of K*a0 compared to d0 would seem to be important.

“0.5*k*a1*t^2 – I suspect most of us haven’t fully grasped the significance one way or another of this term.”

since k.a1 = b1 this is just the integral of the b1.t term in dCO2/dt = b0 +b1.t
Nothing either mathematical or physical has been added. It is simply the curvature of the CO2 series. Introducing k into it is obfuscation.

Bart,
If you cannot see that your argument ‘proving’ there is no anthropgenic term only works if you assume that from the beginning, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.

I still do not see your point. My point is, the same scale factor which matches the variations in the rate of change of CO2 with the variations in the temperature also matches the trend in the rate of change of CO2 with the trend in temperature.

There are thus corroborating evidences that all components of the rate of change of CO2, to within an additive constant, are accounted for by the response to temperature.

Since the rate of human emissions has not been constant, there is no room for it. The trend in the rate of change of CO2 is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:55 am

“Only temporarely.”

No, not only temporarily. There is a constant flow of new CO2 coming in, and every new increment of CO2 added to the system is subject to additional outgassing due to the rise in temperature.

Nyq Only says:
August 22, 2013 at 12:08 pm

I appreciate your thoughtful input at this stage. There is a little play in that slope. You might be able to reduce it by, I don’t know, maybe 30% to grab a number out of the air, and make way for a 30% anthropogenic contribution. But, since the observed rise is 50% of the anthropogenic sum total, that means you only have 15% of the anthropogenic input actually remaining in the atmosphere. And, that’s just about the best you can do. Whether 15% would be considered significant or not is a matter of personal judgment – I would say it is pretty small. But, there is another consideration.

What is more likely, that the CO2 regulatory system takes out nearly all the anthropogenic CO2 and is almost entirely influenced by the temperature relationship, or that it allows a small amount, say 15%, to stay, and the rest is determined by the temperature relationship? The former, most definitely. The latter requires careful balance, whereas the latter merely requires powerful sinks, and powerful natural sources to balance them.

jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Jimmi, your argument is just plain wrong. If you cannot see it, I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.

It is found that there is a value k such that, to a high degree of fidelity

g(t) = k*f(t)

Great, so I have this value of k. But, now I look and I note that, this k is also the ratio of b1 to a1.

Ah ha, says I. So, to within an additive constant, dCO2/dt is proportional to temperature, and the constant of proportionality k matches both a1 to b1 AND f(t) to g(t)

BOTH. Read it again. BOTH. It matches the trend to the trend, AND it matches the variation to the variation.

Now, jimmi_the_dalek would be correct IF I were claiming that k was the ratio of b1 to a1 and that was all. Then, my claimed match would be circular logic. But, that is NOT what I am claiming. k is special and unique because it matches BOTH the trend, AND the variation. That is what I am claiming.

I am frankly offended that Jimmi would so easily assume that I had made such an elementary mistake as he imagines.

Oh, for crying out loud. Look at it! The temperature goes up, dCO2/dt goes up. The temperature goes down, dCO2/dt goes down. Long term, short term, whatever term you like. The tracking, given all the observational errors which can creep in, is exquisite.

Problem is that you can match the first two terms, but a series expansion has to match all coefficients at all orders for the two series to coincide. Your scaling specifically cause the third term not to match. Look at my two cubics and see what happens to the third term. You have to show that the higher terms match otherwise in your own words “IF I were claiming that k was the ratio of b1 to a1 and that was all. Then, my claimed match would be circular logic”

Actually Bart, though your claim that there is something special about the choice of scaling factor k is unproven, it is your (mis)use of the affine transformation in your argument that is the clearest circular path – to use it as you have you would have to prove that your dCO2/dt was free of anthropogenic factors before you started.

Jimmi and possibly some others:
You seem to be asking Bart to produce a Grand Unified Climate Theory of Everything (“GUC-TOE”), and then commenting on his failure to do so to your satisfaction. I suggest that you are asking too much.

Here is a more reasonable question for YOU to respond to:
“Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”

And please do NOT say this is a “feedback mechanism”. That response, which seems to be the best the warmists can come up with, is just too lame for polite discussion

The answer to your question
““Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”

is, it is not on all timescales. It is true on very long timescales ~100000 years, it is true on short timescales ~1-2 years, it is not true on medium timescales, at least it has not been demonstrated to be so.

Oh, by the way, I am not a “warmist”. I just like people to use correct arguments. Bart’s is false, it is a circular argument which presupposes the conclusion he wishes to reach.

You have fought the battle for truth above mightily and with GREAT patience and rock-solid arguments. There is nothing more you can say. You have said it all (and most of it at least TWICE). No one could argue the case for temperature driving CO2 emissions better. Those of us looking on were convinced by your evidence long ago. Those who will not be convinced never will be. Let them natter on here, alone, listening intently to the echoes of their own babblings, mistaking them for wisdom. You have earned a well-deserved sabbatical!

APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!

Way to go, O Hero for Truth!

You are the intellectual equivalent of one of King David’s “Mighty Men” of valor.

jimmi_the_dalek says on August 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The answer to your question … …is, it is not on all timescales. It is true on very long timescales ~100000 years, it is true on short timescales ~1-2 years, it is not true on medium timescales, at least it has not been demonstrated to be so.”

__________________

Jimmi, I said all MEASURED time scales. Your answer is an irrelevant deflection – an apparent cop-out.

The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales. So what have you said? Not much. You have essentially answered a question with another question.

I was expecting an answer to my question, so how about trying to provide one?

BTW, I did not assume you were a warmist – I do not claim to know your politics.

And thank you for not saying the lag of CO2 after temperature is a “feedback effect”.

“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales”
Allan, well neither you nor I defined “medium”. But if you mean the last 60 years or so, that is probably the most accurate of all data in the climate area.

g(t) = k*f(t), by inspection. You seem to want perfection, where there is none possible. These data are uncertain and corrupted, and they are bulk measurements of global distributions. There is never going to be a perfect match. But, this is as good a match as one could reasonably expect, and as needed to make reliable inference. If you do not see the amazing correlation in that plot, you must have very poor eyesight.

You have crossed the line into willful obtuseness, and bludgeoning nitpickery. Just admit you didn’t understand the argument at first and jumped to conclusions which you now recognize to have been trivially wrong, and we can move on.

Thanks. Glad someone is not searching for reasons to justify ignoring what is right in front of their eyes. It never ceases to amaze me the cockamamie reasons people will invent to maintain belief in what they want to believe.

I thought we had stopped but if you insist….
” g(t) = k*f(t), by inspection. ”

Yes I thought that is what you would have done … all done by eye.

However that was not what my last question was about. I asked about the affine transformation which you say proves there is no anthropogenic term. Was that done by eye too? Or was there some real maths. What did you actually do?

Bart says: August 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm
“My point is, the same scale factor which matches the variations in the rate of change of CO2 with the variations in the temperature also matches the trend in the rate of change of CO2 with the trend in temperature.”

That suggests your ‘k’ factor is not such a great fit with the linear term and hence with the quadratic term in the integral. Note this is also using your best fit with the Southern Hemisphere figures instead of global. And we still have the linear trend in CO2 which seems largely unaffected by your temperature parameters.

Janice Moore says: August 22, 2013 at 9:51 pm
“You have said it all (and most of it at least TWICE). No one could argue the case for temperature driving CO2 emissions better. Those of us looking on were convinced by your evidence long ago. Those who will not be convinced never will be. Let them natter on here, alone, listening intently to the echoes of their own babblings, mistaking them for wisdom. You have earned a well-deserved sabbatical!”

Well that is a very kind offer you’ve made for Bart to take a rest. I am sure with your comprehensive grasp of Bart’s argument you will be able to stand in for him.

On that note perhaps you can show how an anthropogenic influence can be eliminated from the linear term in CO2 concentration in Bart’s integral?

Allan MacRae says: August 22, 2013 at 10:22 pm
“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales. So what have you said? Not much. You have essentially answered a question with another question.”

The fact is that for the time period that we have the most sustained and accurate measurements of CO2 concentrations and temperature that CO2 does not lag temperature except at higher frequencies. Which is pretty much what the AGW hypothesis would suggest.

If I wasn’t a ‘warmist’ I don’t think I’d argue to loudly that CO2 lags temperature in all periods and timescales except during the late twentieth century. That arguments sounds more like a smoking gun for human influences than some fundamental victory against it.

jimmi_the_dalek says on August 22, 2013 at 10:31 pm
“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales”
Allan, well neither you nor I defined “medium”. But if you mean the last 60 years or so, that is probably the most accurate of all data in the climate area.

Jimmi, I suggest that most informed people would define the “modern data record” as extending back to 1958 when systematic CO2 measurements commenced. The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958. I stated this factual observation in January 2008. This 1958 definition requires the use of surface temperature data such as Hadcrut, which contains obvious weaknesses, including very poor sample distribution and an apparent warming bias of ~0.07C/decade. If you prefer, one can use 1979 when modern satellite temperature data was initiated, but I prefer 1958 for this discussion.

Medium time scales are hereby defined as the (approx.) 1000 years prior to 1958, to include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Jimmi, you have one more chance to actually answer my question rather than continuing to avoid it:
“Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”
______

[[ Note that my question deliberately sidesteps the issue of the “mass balance argument” so please do not further deflect down that path. Whether humankind is significantly contributing to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 or whether this increase is primarily natural is outside the scope of my question. I suggest that the only known result of increased atmospheric CO2 is that CO2 is excellent plant food, and thus that current reality is beneficial to humankind and the environment, since atmospheric CO2 is now at low, and perhaps dangerously low levels. ]]

regretably this statement ” The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958.” is not as solid as you think. The graphs that have been touted as showing this, in fact show that the short term variations (1-2 years) away from the mean are probably temperature driven. This is what the graph that dbstealey kept showing demonstrates. This is what Bart’s graphs demonstrate, and if he had stuck with that there would have been no problem. This is what your graphs demonstrate. The problem is that people are extrapolating to say that all the growth in CO2 of the modern era must be temperature driven, and that is not established. Even less established is Bart’s claim that the graphs prove there is no anthropogenic contribution. So sorry, but I disagree with the premise – it is not a “factual observation”, it is a hypothesis still being evaluated. And that is an answer to your question.

JImmi, I asked you not to stray down the path of the “mass balance argument” and that is what you have done, and you have again avoided a direct answer to my question.

Richard Courtney and I have stated here and elsewhere that we do not know the answer to the question “what is the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 – is it primarily natural or humanmade?”. You have just essentially said the same thing.

The “mass balance argument” and the true source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is not that important to society or the environment IF, as I believe, this increase in CO2 is beneficial to both.

Resolving the mass balance argument remains a very important academic question for climate science to resolve in its own time. I suggest that the data collected during a future global cooling period could provide the answer.

Bart may be correct or incorrect in saying that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, but the importance of that question is moot from a societal/environmental standpoint if this increase in CO2 is beneficial to both, which I suggest it is.

Allan,
regretably this statement, “The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958.” is not as solid as you think.

It is rock solid. It could not be more solid.

You continue

The graphs that have been touted as showing this, in fact show that the short term variations (1-2 years) away from the mean are probably temperature driven. This is what the graph that dbstealey kept showing demonstrates. This is what Bart’s graphs demonstrate, and if he had stuck with that there would have been no problem. This is what your graphs demonstrate.

YES! That is part of the evidence for the coherence of T following CO2 bein rock solid.

You then say

The problem is that people are extrapolating to say that all the growth in CO2 of the modern era must be temperature driven, and that is not established.

SOME people may be doing that, but I don’t. a qualifier would have been appreciated.
And you follow that with

Even less established is Bart’s claim that the graphs prove there is no anthropogenic contribution. So sorry, but I disagree with the premise – it is not a “factual observation”, it is a hypothesis still being evaluated.

Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?

Your reply evades answering that and obfuscates by providing only irrelevance.

Hence, I am forced to conclude that your true answer which you cannot bring yourself to provide is thatYou DO NOT HAVE any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature
because if you had such an explanation then you would have provided it.

Allan,
I diid not mention “mass balance”. And I said that your question cannot be answered at the present time as it contains an unproven premise, namely that CO2 lags temperature at all times. How can I give a direct answer to your question when I have no proof of the included premise? I would not be a skeptic, in the true sense of the word, if I accepted unquestionably unproven premises, would I?

Further, the purpose of the nomination is to support the contention which I and others have repeatedly made in this thread that, in the words of Allan MacRae, is stated as being

The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958.

I admit some surprise that you would dispute this statement. The coherence of changes in temperature following changes in atmospheric CO2 was first reported by Kuo, Linberg and Thomson (Nature) in 1990. It has been confirmed by several others using different data sets since then. Allan MacRae made an independent determination of that coherence in 2008, and he has not reported failure of the coherence since then.

However, in your post at August 23, 2013 at 3:43 am you say concerning graphs of those parameters

The graphs that have been touted as showing this, in fact show that the short term variations (1-2 years) away from the mean are probably temperature driven.

I understand that when you say “variations” which are “temperature driven” then by “variations” you mean ‘variations in the CO2′.

If the variations in the CO2 are “probably temperature driven” then changes in CO2 must follow changes in temperature; i.e, the opposite of what the graphs show.

You may be right when you contend that short-term variations in the CO2 are probably temperature driven, but that is NOT what I see when I look at the graphs, and it conflicts with all the published literature on the subject.So, in this circumstance, I choose to nominate whichever graph you think most supports your surprising contention, and I request you to explain how that graph indicates what you contend.

I regret that others here are not technically adept enough to fully understand my argument, but it is sound. When the history is written some years from now, remember that I told you so. And, it was obvious.

Bart – you may indeed be correct. We just lack clear evidence. There could be a humanmade component AND a natural component to the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, as I keep pointing out, the humanmade component does not seem to leave any signature in yearly, seasonal or even daily data. Ferdinand only infers the humanmade component by indirect means, which Richard ably disputes.

No, not only temporarily. There is a constant flow of new CO2 coming in, and every new increment of CO2 added to the system is subject to additional outgassing due to the rise in temperature

Bart, this is really basic process knowledge.

Consider what is upwelling by the oceans: a certain amount of water with a certain concentration of carbon. For the temperature at the surface, that gives a certain pressure of CO2 at the water side. The difference with the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is what drives the CO2 flux between ocean and atmosphere. An increase of the concentration of the upwelling increases the pCO2(aq) at the upwelling side, which increases the influx. That increases the pCO2 in the atmosphere which decreases the influx and increases the outflux at the sink side. That ends with an increased throughput and a limited increase in the atmosphere (halve the increase of the pCO2(aq) at the upwelling side) with an e-fold decay rate of ~10 years:

Something similar happens with a temperature increase where an increase of 1 K gives ~16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere and no increase in throughput:

The combination of both is simply additive, not multiplicative, as the influence of concentration on the temperature influence is limited:

That implies that the influence of the ~0.6 K temperature increase of the ocean surfaces over the past 50 years did give a maximum of 10 ppmv increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever the influence of an increase in upwelling (for which there is no proof).

Which graph shows the best coherence:
or this one:
where changes in temperature of about halve the scale have little effect on CO2 levels, but the full scale change over time would have an enormous influence on the CO2 level (over 100 ppmv/K), not seen on any time scale, including the MWP-LIA temperature change…

What we can learn from the temperature-increase graph is that there are two (near) independent processes at work: the short term, limited influence of temperature changes on CO2 changes and the trend over the past decades.

If the trend is caused by temperature or by human emissions, that is the current round of debate, but for what I know of the earth’s processes and the available observations, the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 and the oceans can’t be the cause, as the temperature increase over the past 5 decades is only good for 10 ppmv, per Henry’s law, of the 70+ which is observed…

Goodness Allan, if you are going to knock down strawmen you could at least make up ones with some more content than that. What I said we knew (many messages ago) was that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and so we know of a plausible mechanism by which higher levels of CO2 could lead to higher temperatures. We also know (and the main players in this argument seem to agree) that there really have been anthropogenic emissions.

As for “﻿﻿﻿﻿We KNOW that CO2 drives Earth’s temperature” I have argued that in there are many cases of the exact opposite – temperature drives CO2 when left to its own devices. Indeed the fact that we can find so many cases of that at time periods or time scales where the anthropogenic effects would be minimal and yet find CO2 not being driven by temperature when we look at a time scale and time period with significant anthropogenic emissions is one coincidence too many.

This all fits with what we know – without something forcing an increase in CO2 then we should find CO2 following temperature. Non-anthropogenic effects could cause an non-temperature dependent increase in CO2 but those effects would be relatively unusual and, for a parsimony of science perspective, unnecessarily complicating the explanation. Something is causing a non-temperature dependent roughly linear growth in CO2. Bart’s work, ironically, demonstrates that this linear growth is not determined by temperature. So does dbstealey’s. In Bart’s model a coefficient has to be included THAT CANNOT be found from the relationship of the differential of CO2 and the temperature anomaly.

There seems to be a hidden assumption (not made by Bart but apparently by some of the people cheering him on) that it can be either that CO2 never drives temperature or that CO2 drives temperature and that the mechanics of both must be mutually exclusive. We can put our graphs aside and check, like good empiricists/skeptics, and see that this is not the case. We know that temperature increases can lead to an increase in CO2 and we know of many ways this can occur. We know that an increase in CO2 can, in some circumstances, lead to an increase in temperature.